Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensioners (Income)

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in pensioners' average net incomes from (a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' average total net income rose by 3 per cent. in real terms. Newly available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 it rose by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Harris: Given the significant difference between those two figures, will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the substantial record of this Government is far more important than the rhetoric of the Opposition, especially as the figures show that the Labour party has a miserable record in this important area?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Taking the picture as a whole, it is certainly striking how much better pensioners have done under this Government than under the previous Labour Government. We have sought, by using income-related benefits, to assist, in particular, pensioners who do not have savings income and occupational pensions.

Mr. Battle: Will not the Secretary of State admit that the removal of the transitional arrangements for housing benefit has meant that this year's increased pension for pensioners on income support has been wiped out? They are worse off this year—with the increase—than they were last year. Is not that the reality for many pensioners today?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the housing benefit transitional protection arrangements, but the change in those that is intended to take place in April represents a smaller proportion of the pension increase this year than last, so his point does not stand up to examination.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has been achieved, will he look carefully at the position of the wartime generation of pensioners, many of whom were unable to save or to own their own homes, and many of whom have not shared fully in the increased standard of living of the vast majority of pensioners?

Mr. Newton: Let me make two points. First, the figures to which I referred show that the proportion of pensioners in the lowest fifth of income distribution fell sharply between 1979 and 1987. Secondly, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, we have sought to direct extra help to those who do not have savings and occupational pensions income.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister will realise that we are less impressed by the figure of 30 per cent. because we read yesterday that top people's incomes have increased by 28 per cent. in a single year. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under Labour basic pensions increased by 20 per cent., whereas under this Government they have increased by a miserly 2 per cent? Is not the truth that the rich are becoming richer on a prodigious scale while the poor are becoming poorer very rapidly? Is not the Minister filled with self-disgust at his role? Is not he tempted to leave office and do a runner or, as we say in Wales, do a Walker?

Mr. Newton: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in asking the question and return a firm no to it. As to the rest of his question, he cannot have been listening to what I said. The other point that emerges from the 30 per cent. figure is that pensioners' incomes have been rising faster than those of the population at large.

Income-related Benefits

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional help is being provided for families in receipt of income-related benefits.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): As a result of the reforms in April 1988, we provided an extra £200 million for low-income families with children. A further £70 million was provided under last April's uprating. From this coming April, we are providing additional help to less well-off families amounting to some £75 million in a full year, including help for families with disabled children and, through the social fund, maternity payment for expectant mothers. That brings the total amount of extra help provided for families with children in receipt of income-related benefits to over £350 million a year in real terms since April 1988.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend gives some extremely welcome figures. As a general uprating of child benefit would not have helped those receiving income-related benefits and family credit, does my right hon. Friend agree that the specific targeted help under the family premium for those families is particularly important and more likely to hold them together, which is very important in this day and age?

Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The help that we shall introduce in April with the family premium, help within the family credit scheme over and above compensating for inflation, extra help with housing benefit, the lone-parent premium—which is being improved in housing benefit and community charge benefit—and the earnings disregard are all examples of how we seek to target help on those who need it most.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister come clean and admit that many people are suffering since he abolished single


payments and replaced them with the social fund? Will he explain why a woman with five children in my constituency, who is being rehoused because of domestic violence, has been refused money under the social fund to buy beds for her children? She would have received that money under the single payments scheme.

Mr. Winnick: Disgraceful.

Mrs. Mahon: It is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says. Why does not the Minister examine the failure of the social fund?

Mr. Scott: There are several questions later on the Order Paper about the social fund. The decisions are taken by independent social fund officers. Anyone who is dissatisfied with a decision can ask for the case to be reviewed and, if necessary, investigated by a social fund inspector.

Residential Care Homes

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding state support for pensioners in residential care homes.

Mr. Scott: We have received a significant number of representations. Part of our response has been to provide an extra £100 million to increase all the national income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes from this April. Current spending on income support payments to people in homes is now well in excess of £1 billion a year.

Mr. Colvin: The House will be pleased to note the action already taken by the Government to close the gap between the cost of nursing homes—particularly following the welcome and substantial pay increase to nurses two years ago—and the cost to old people of living in those homes which is assisted by the Department of Social Security through income support.
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government's proposed top-up arrangements do not apply to existing residents in nursing homes? Will he therefore join my hon. Friends and myself in lobbying the Department of Health to extend that help to existing residents of nursing homes, not just to new entrants?

Mr. Scott: I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that under the new arrangement people under and over pension age will be helped. With regard to the existing cases, we continue to have discussions with our colleagues in the Department of Health, but I cannot comment further than that today.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm that almost half the residents in residential care do not have their fees paid in full, even though they are on income support? Will we have to wait for evictions from those homes before the Government change their policy?

Mr. Scott: No, I do not think so. Our commitment to improvement in residential care has been proved by the way in which we have allowed expenditure to increase from £10 million when we came to office to £1·1 billion now, by the continued growth in the population of those in residential and nursing homes and by the something like 10 per cent. per annum increase in the number of homes providing such care.

Sir David Price: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Social Services which deals directly with the problem and makes a series of recommendations with which I will not detain the House now? Those recommendations require an early response before the Social Security Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Scott: We received the report only on Friday. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we want to give it rather longer consideration than just the past few days. I recognise the concern and feeling about the subject, not least as a result of my two appearances before the Select Committee on Social Services, of which my hon. Friend is a member. We are considering the matter carefully, but I do not believe that the Government can simply write a blank cheque to meet any charges, however high.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the increasing insistence of local authority leaders of all political persuasions that their lack of funds for community care is forcing more people into residential care who could live in the community with adequate local services and that the poll tax will compound their problems? Will he at least ensure that income support payments keep pace with the charges agreed by local authorities for new residents?

Mr. Scott: I am not sure whether I can agree that. We introduced the new arrangements for community care which are part of the legislation currently before the House precisely because we believed that there was a perverse incentive for people to go into residential care, even when it was not the most suitable place for them to be. Making extra sources available for local authorities to provide care in the community is the right way to ensure that judgments can be made in the interests of patients or clients.

Pensioners (Income)

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the change in pensioners' incomes from savings.

Mr. Newton: Newly available figures show that between 1979 and 1987, pensioners' average income from savings more than doubled in real terms.

Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What proportion of retired people receive income from occupational pensions?

Mr. Newton: The proportion of pensioners overall who have income from occupational pensions is just over half, but among more recently retired pensioners the figure is now nearly three quarters.

Mr. Winnick: Instead of trying to defend the shabby way in which pensioners have been treated by the Government, will the Secretary of State explain why, time and again, pensioners are penalised because they have saved during their working lives? If they have accumulated a sum of money, even quite a modest one by present-day standards, they are penalised in receiving benefit and unable to get rebates. As the Secretary of State and the Minister are well known for being somewhat wet in the Tory party, why do not they have the guts to do what the Secretary of State for Wales has done?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman that, less than two years ago, the amount of capital that people could have and still receive supplementary benefit was only £3,000.

Ms. Short: That is because they increased it to £10,000.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady should check her facts before making sedentary interventions.
There is now a taper from £3,000 to £6,000. The hon. Gentleman knows that the limit for housing benefit was raised to £8,000.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who thought that they had made adequate provision for their retirement saw their savings devastated because of the rate of inflation under the Labour Government in the 1970s? Is he further aware that there is concern among Conservative Members about the savings threshold, particularly for community charge benefit? It appears to be a tax on thrift and prudence, because retired people may lose all claim to rebates if they have made efforts to save during their working lives.

Mr. Newton: I recognise that the level at which capital limits are set is a matter for judgment. Our judgment was to increase them about two years ago, especially in relation to housing benefit and rate rebates. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the more generous arrangements for community charge benefit than for rate rebates, in that it has a lower taper, will significantly help many people.

Child Benefit

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of uprating child benefit to bring it to the same level in real terms as prevailed in 1984.

Mr. Newton: About £635 million net in the current financial year.

Ms. Primarolo: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed that child benefit, the most efficient way of getting money to families, is worth 19 per cent. less than it was in 1984? As the Government are notorious for leaks, will the Secretary of State confirm the rumour that the Government are to abolish child benefit, and will he make a statement on the matter, either before the Mid-Staffordshire by-election or before the next general election?

Mr. Newton: We have no plans to do anything other than what we are committed to do and have been doing, which it to review the rate of child benefit each year in the light of all the circumstances and, of course, to devote considerable resources to assisting the least well-off families, as we have done on a large scale.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be sensible to use the enormous sum that he mentioned—two thirds of £1 billion—to assist not only the poorest families but some of the wealthiest in the country through child benefit uprating? If he wished to help the poorest families, would not it be wiser to make some modest change in the tax rules on benefits in kind to assist members of families who wish to get back to work?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, with her characteristic ingenuity, makes a point which I shall need to transmit to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall ensure that it is drawn to his attention. In response to the first part of her question, over £1 billion of expenditure on child benefit goes to 1·75 million families whose incomes are over £20,000 a year.

Ms. Short: Is not it time that the Government came clean with mothers in Britain about their plans for the future of child benefit—a popular benefit with mothers at all income levels? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's failure to uprate child benefit in line with inflation is depriving every child in Britain of £1·35 per week? Will he admit that the Government have breached their promise to the nation in the previous election manifesto? Does he agree that it would be hypocritical for a Government who have massively cut taxes for the rich to argue that child benefit should be means-tested when the effect of means-testing would be to deepen the poverty trap for women on low incomes wishing to return to work?

Mr. Newton: The answer to every part of the hon. Lady's question is no. We have faithfully maintained the commitment in the 1987 manifesto and at the same time directed substantial additional resources to helping the least well-off families with children. As a result of what will happen next month, about 1·5 million families, with one quarter of the nation's children, will do better than if we had uprated child benefit.

Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra £70 million that will become available in income-related benefits to a quarter of children will give them substantially more than if there had been a general increase in child benefit, which is surely inequitable now?

Mr. Newton: Yes, Sir.

Social Fund

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total social fund allocation by grant and loan for the current financial year; and what was the equivalent figure for the last year of the single payments scheme.

Mr. Scott: Expenditure on single payments in 1987–88 was £214 million with an average award of £77. The total social fund allocation to local offices for 1989–90 is £204 million with an average award of £203 for budgeting loans and £260 for community care grants.

Mr. Corbyn: Last week, the High Court ruled that the administration of the social fund was illegal. What plans do the Government have to ensure that sufficient social fund money in local social security offices is available to meet the needs of people in every community, and that there will be equity in decision-making throughout the country? Does he agree that the present system of administration of the social fund is blatantly unfair, has resulted in a great deal of misery and represents an enormous cut in social security expenditure? Will he revert to the previous system of statutory single payments so that people in genuine and desperate need can get the help that they require and need not rely on the discretion of a local office which is cash-limited?

Mr. Scott: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the social fund. If he took the trouble to look at the figures that I gave to the House—indeed if he had listened to them—he would see that what he said was manifestly out of order. Nor do I recognise his description of the High Court decision. The court simply said that some guidance had been drawn in too prescriptive a manner. Nothing in the judgment undermined the fundamental principles of the social fund. The judge said that he understood that Parliament expected the social fund to be run under strict monetary limits. I see no need to respond in any positive way to the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. McCrindle: Am I correct in thinking that about £3 million of additional resources have been directed to the social security offices under greatest pressure from claims under the social fund? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, irrespective of where one lives or the period of the fiscal year in which a claim is made, it means that, subject to all the conditions being satisfied, there should be no difficulty meeting the claims?

Mr. Scott: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend back to the House and confirm that what he says is true. We undertook to monitor the operation of the social fund when it was introduced and found £3 million extra to help 106 local offices that were under particular pressure. I cannot completely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement. Discretion, flexibility and targeting help on those who need it most may mean that different decisions will be taken in different parts of the country. However, our new procedures and the social fund inspectors seek to combine that discretion and flexibility with fairness.

Mr. Meacher: Having been found guilty by the High Court nearly a fortnight ago of operating the social fund illegally, why has the Secretary of State still not issued any revised guidance to end the illegality? Is he aware that contrary to what the Minister of State just said, Lord Justice Woolf declared that the Secretary of State has imposed budget restraints in mandatory terms that were inconsistent with the intended flexible nature of the scheme? When will the right hon. Gentleman remove those budget restraints on the relief of poverty which should never have been imposed in the first place?

Mr. Scott: Nothing in the judgment does anything to nullify the fact that social fund officers should have regard to the budget when making their decisions. The judgment stated that the guidance was an overriding priority when making those decisions. We have notified our local offices that for the time being the budget should continue to be taken into account but that it should not have an overriding impact. We are further considering what other action we may need to take in that area.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Government must take more concrete and positive action as a result of the High Court decision and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that with some urgency. It must be incompatible on the one hand to expect adjudication officers to use their discretion while on the other hand they run up against cash-limited budgets. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is a double indignity to be given approval for a social fund payment in principle and then to be told that its payment is impossible because the

budget has been exhausted? That will simply lead to people being discouraged from making social fund applications in the future.

Mr. Scott: We wish to ensure that the Government come forward with proposals and we shall want to consider whether they will be purely administrative or will need some legislative underpinning. In essence, I want to combine budgetary limits with flexibility. I do not believe that they are incompatible. They can operate in the interests of the taxpayer and of claimants.

Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend heard a clear statement from any Opposition party that the implied suggestion that there should be no limit on the social fund is its policy?

Mr. Scott: The Labour party has suggested that it wants to return to the old system of single payments, under which 80 per cent. of the money went to fewer than 20 per cent. of the claimants, and where we had an open-ended budget that rocketed up. All hon. Members know from constituency experience that the single payment system was open to widespread abuse.

Family Incomes

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live in families with incomes which are on, or within 40 per cent. above, the benefit level appropriate to their circumstances.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The information requested used to be published in the low-income families tables, but these are no longer published because of technical shortcomings and methodological deficiencies. This was explained in the report of the technical review of low-income statistics. The last figures covering the period up to 1985 were published in May 1988 and are available in the Library.

Mr. Banks: Is not it true that the Government have ceased to collect statistics because they are so embarrassed about the number of people now in poverty? I understand that such figures have not been produced since 1985. How much has poverty increased under the Government? We understand that it has increased by 100 per cent. since 1979 and we believe that 10 million people now live in poverty. What is the truth? Does the Minister know? Should not the Minister be ashamed that this country's biggest growth industry appears to be the number of people in poverty?

Mrs. Shephard: As I have said, the Government ceased to use the low-income family tables because of technical shortcomings and methodological deficiencies. We did so because the same measure was used for defining poverty and for the means of relieving it. The obvious concurrence of that was a cut in benefits, leading to a reduction in the number of those in poverty. That was a ludicrous approach.
In response to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, all groups in the population have experienced an increase in their living standard over the past 10 years. Between 1981 and 1985, couples with children in the bottom decile had an increase of 8 per cent. There was an increase of 6 per cent. for those in the second bottom decile.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plain truth is that under the Conservative Government those with the lowest incomes have done extraordinarily well and far better than under the Labour Government, when they saw their real incomes hardly move? It has been realised throughout the world that the creation of wealth comes first and that its distribution comes second. Unless we get it in that order, we shall never help the poor.

Mrs. Shephard: The increase in the size of the social security budget is the direct result of the Government's successful economic policies. More than £1 billion a week is spent on social security benefits. That amounts to £20 per week for every man, woman and child.

Mr. Meacher: Is it the Government's intention that the 7 million to 8 million adult claimants on income support will have to pay a sizeable chunk of poll tax? Is the Minister aware that the Government's 20 per cent. personal allowance applies only to their laughable guideline poll tax figure of £278, so that those on the poverty line will have to pay poll tax on at least a further £100? The Prime Minister said that the poorest would be protected from the poll tax. Is that yet another promise broken, like the right hon. Lady's promise 10 years ago that prescription charges would not be increased?

Mrs. Shephard: Those on income support will be expected to pay 20 per cent. towards the cost of their community charge, for which an allowance is made within income support rates. Any increases during this year will be taken into account during next year's exercise.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important sector of the benefit population—those living on benefit—is single parents, primarily single mothers, where the father has abdicated any responsibility for the family? Will she ensure that the Government bring forward proposals as soon as possible to make sure that fathers do not get away with it, and that if necessary there will be an attachment of earnings or a deduction from benefit?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will be aware that there have been increases in premiums in housing benefit and in community charge benefit for lone parents, and that there is to be a much more generous disregard for housing benefit with effect from October. He is right in saying, however, that much closer attention needs to be given to the amount of maintenance that is paid by fathers for the upkeep of their children. That is precisely what the Government's study and review are intended to achieve.

Incomes

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live on incomes below the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Estimates of eligible non-recipients of income-related benefits are contained in the technical notes on take-up, copies of which are available in the Library. These notes contain analyses for 1985, the latest year for which information is available.

Mr. McAvoy: Is not the Minister's answer that, in effect, the relevant figures indicative of the Government's attitude to poorer people have been phased out? As the

Minister said, the latest figures available are those for 1985. Does she think that by abolishing the figures that reflect poverty, she is abolishing poverty?

Mrs. Shephard: No. In reply to earlier questions, I said that the series of income analyses, based on the households with below average income, are designed to provide an appropriate and accurate measure of people's differing living standards. They are the result of a technical review conducted by officials in the Department. They will focus on the incidence of incomes below the average, and we believe that they will give a more realistic picture.

Mr. Hind: Of those living just above benefit level, many are pensioners, a high proportion of whom are living on fixed incomes. All these people are hit hard by increases in standard charges, whether for heating, electricity or the community charge. Should not we keep material evidence on that group, to assess how those in it are coping? Will my hon. Friend look at that problem again?

Mrs. Shephard: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. One of the problems with a social security system is that one has to draw lines somewhere. As I have already said, those lines, and levels, will be reviewed as part of this year's exercise.

Family Incomes

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children live in families with income on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to question No. 11.

Mr. Pike: When will the Minister accept that the poorest section of the community suffers worst as a result of the freezing of child benefits, the forcing up of council house rents because of ring-fencing, and mortgage interest increases? Does she intend to increase the number of people at or just above poverty level? Is it not time that the Government gave more help to those most in need?

Mrs. Shephard: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the considerable improvements aimed at helping poorer families. Since April 1988, some 1·5 million families with 3 million children have had what I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree are quite substantial increases in their income-related benefits, amounting to £350 million in all. That includes increases in premiums, an extra £1 a week above inflation in the pocket of the mother, lower-paid working families getting family credit and additional help in housing benefit. The Government's social security system targets help.

Mr. Viggers: Is not the European Community definition of poverty, on which the Opposition make so much play, bogus, because it depends on a standard of benefit that is so ridiculous that it would mean that the more that we increased benefit, the more poor people there would be?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a network of proper income support, which is not to be found in the countries of our European Community partners.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the problem is not caused by technical deficiencies or deficiencies in methodology? Is she aware that every time she or any of her colleagues are challenged about the refusal of one benefit or another, they say that the appeals system will take care of that? However, the appeals system is clogged up because of the directions that she and other Ministers have given that payments should be reduced.

Mrs. Shephard: I accept that the work load of the appeals system fluctuates from time to time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that while some people are worse off than others, one thing is certain—no Government have ever accepted the proposition that one can draw a single poverty line with some on one side and some on the other. I remind him that the social security system, with its total budget of £55 billion a year, gives more extensive and better coverage than any other social security system that we have had.

Staff Relocation

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in relocating his Department's staff away from the London area.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a substantial amount of the Department's work in London was to be relocated to Leeds. A site for the new headquarters building in Leeds has been identified, and I expect that the relocation of posts from London will begin from the end of 1991.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I give cautious thanks for that reply, for two reasons. First, is not my hon. Friend concerned that the hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this topic, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), seems to be in total opposition to the move from London to the midlands and the north, which represents a much-needed improvement of the economy and employment? Secondly, I should have hoped that any reasonable person would consider that the city of Nottingham was a much better place to go than the city of Leeds.

Mrs. Shephard: Nottingham was included among the possible locations for the move of the Department of Social Security. Leeds was decided upon after the most careful consideration of its advantages, which are many. Indeed, it was the first choice among the staff who had an interest in relocating.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Charitable Status

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has undertaken of the impact of charitable status upon arts bodies.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Arts bodies that are charities derive considerable benefits from their charitable status. Under the new arrangements for the unified business rate, the minimum mandatory rate

relief that local authorities must give to charities is to go up from 50 to 80 per cent. Local authorities continue to have discretion to give up to 100 per cent. relief to charities.

Mr. Wardle: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House roughly how many gainers there will be among arts bodies as a result of the change to charitable status? Have not various recent Government initiatives led to a substantial increase in corporate and private donations to the arts, and has not central Government and local government spending increased considerably as well?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. It is not possible to be precise about the number of net gainers among the charitable bodies in the arts. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the four national companies—the royal opera house, English National Opera, the royal national theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company—are all net gainers. My hon. Friend is right that the amount of corporate sponsorship is still increasing. It is estimated to be at least £35 million a year in support of the arts.

National Film and Television School

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to expand the National Film and Television School.

Mr. Luce: I am increasing the grant to the National Film and Television School from £1·7 million in 1989–90 to £1·85 million in 1991–92 and will shortly be considering plans for its longer-term future.

Mr. Haynes: What a measly increase. When will the Minister do his job properly? Is he aware of the massive expansion of the school? Is he aware that there is a need for a European school? Is he aware of the expansion that there will be, and that the European School needs to be in the United Kingdom? If he funds the school properly, we shall get the European school here. The Minister should remember that we have had many successful actors—we have produced the finest in the world and we want to continue to do so. It is necessary for us, in the United Kingdom, to be involved with the European school.

Hon. Members: Encore.

Mr. Skinner: Will you refuse your Oscar, Frank?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) anticipated me. I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has not yet received an Oscar for drama, but no doubt it will come in due course. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the film industry, so I am all the more surprised that he has not acknowledged that in the past 10 years there has been an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. in Government resources and overall resources for the National Film and Television School. If he had acknowledged that, I might have been able to take his question a little more seriously.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to Radio Nottingham, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has been offered a part in a film by none other than David Puttnam? Can he confirm that, following the hon. Gentleman's departure from the House after the next general election—which all Conservative


Members regret—the National Film and Television School will be able to provide a place for the hon. Gentleman if he applies?

Mr. Luce: That is one of the best recommendations that I have heard, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Arts (Southwark)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the amount of Government money which went to arts organisations or activities in Southwark in the last year for which figures are available.

Mr. Luce: In the current year, Greater London Arts has given £477,000 to 60 different activities and organisations in the borough of Southwark. The imperial war museum received £10·4 million, and the local museums and galleries in London receive financial support and advice via the Museums and Galleries Commission.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Is he aware, however, of the double danger that faces boroughs such as Southwark in the coming financial year? Much of the money provided for the arts on the abolition of the GLC expires this year and will not be renewed. If the Secretary of State for the Environment were to poll-tax-cap Southwark, there would probably be no funding for the arts at all, either in Southwark or docklandswide. Will the Minister talk to his right hon. Friend, and make sure that the implications of poll tax and poll-tax-capping are clear? Discretionary funding will probably disappear altogether if any such idea crosses the desks in Marsham street.

Mr. Luce: It is entirely up to the borough of Southwark to decide what sums it can and should provide for artistic activities on behalf of its ratepayers. I note with interest that, over the past year, Scottish local authorities—despite the introduction of the community charge in Scotland a year ago—have been keeping up their support for the arts: vast sums are not required to provide them with good support and to enable them to flourish.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great work done by arts institutions in Southwark such as the Southwark Heritage Association, the Shakespeare Globe trust and the Dulwich picture gallery, and of the enterprising way in which they have attracted not only public support but business sponsorship. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at Southwark council's reluctance to support those artistic institutions financially, morally or in some other way?

Mr. Luce: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view. The Dulwich picture gallery, for example, is an outstanding centre of excellence. It makes a strong bid for private sector support and, indeed, I am going there to support its appeal for extra funds. Certainly such bodies deserve support, as does any centre of excellence.

National Companies

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will discuss with the Arts Council steps to reduce the deficits of the national companies.

Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to decide the level at which the national companies are funded. In 1990–91 they will each receive a grant increase of 11 per cent.

Mr. Banks: What other European country would treat its national companies as the Government treat ours? The Minister knows that the companies have been examined independently, and that the way in which they spend their grant has been found to be most efficient. Will he consider providing additional funds? Could his Ministry, for instance, fund the national centres directly rather than through the Arts Council—or will all this be stopped by the Queen of the Goths over at No. 10?

Mr. Luce: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I have already told him that next year will see one of the biggest cash increases ever provided: the total increase for the four main national companies will be just under £4 million.
I also find it odd that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that copying other countries is necessarily the right answer. The key question that we must ask ourselves is, "What is the quality of these national institutions?" We must ask ourselves whether they are of the highest quality—and the answer is yes. We have every reason to be proud of them.

Mr. Jessel: The national companies are indeed of tremendously high quality. In view of the 11 per cent. increase that my right hon. Friend has announced, however, does not he think that they should try a little harder to live within their means?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Every institution in the artistic world must live within its means and manage i is resources carefully, given the total amount of money that it has. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said earlier, the Arts Council is to receive a substantial increase next year—£20 million extra in cash resources—and 22 per cent. extra, in cash terms, during the next three years, together with three-year funding. That must be a sound basis on which to plan its finances.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister realise that, even after taking into account last year's increase, the funding of all those companies will be below the rate of inflation over the past five years? That is why the accumulated deficit of the national companies comes to over £7 million. The figures that the Minister announced today will not begin to tackle that problem. The deficits will not go away. The Minister cannot run away and hide from them. If he does not pay off the deficits, it will not be just the Royal Shakespeare Company in London that will close; other companies and other theatres will close. Ten years of Tory mismanagement will leave the arts bankrupt—literally.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He is again asking me directly to intervene and to undermine the arm's length policy. If a Socialist Government were ever elected, they would undermine the arm's length policy that has operated since the end of the Second World War under successive Governments. The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the plain fact that the Arts Council is to receive a £20 million cash increase in the coming year. It is for the Arts Council to decide how to distribute that sum—not the Ministry, not my officials, not me. That is the right principle on which to operate.

Opera and Ballet

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has held with the chairman of the Arts Council regarding the funding of national opera and ballet companies.

Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the funding of arts bodies.

Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who fought long and hard on behalf of English National Opera and its sister ballet company for an increase in funding and then for saving the Westminster funding element are grateful to him for managing to solve those twin problems? However, can he reassure me that that problem will not arise year after year and that he will ensure that there is adequate funding, particularly to cover the Westminster funding element, in the years to come?

Mr. Luce: Like my hon. Friend, I am glad that the Arts Council has decided largely to replace the funding that has been withdrawn by Westminster city council. As I explained in the House during a recent Adjournment debate, the method of funding by the London boroughs arises from the London rate equalisation scheme, which allows the subsidy to be shared among all the boroughs and to be paid by Westminster city council. In recent years, Westminster city council's domestic ratepayers have not been paying a subsidy to support the two institutions that my hon. Friend mentioned. There will now be substantial increases for English National Ballet and English National Opera.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Staff Numbers

Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for Civil Service what is the latest figure he has for the total number of Civil Service staff in post; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary informed the House in December 1989, the total number of Civil Service staff in post is about 565,000. That represents a reduction of over one fifth on the figure for 1979 of about 732,000.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend expect further reductions to be made in coming years? Is he satisfied that in the senior grades one to four of the home Civil Service non-industrial grades only about 5 per cent. of the posts are held by women? If he is not satisfied, how could he achieve greater equilibrium?

Mr. Luce: On my hon. Friend's latter point, only 6 per cent. of the posts in senior grades one to three are held by women. That is a very disappointing figure. It is largely for that reason that we have put in hand an action programme to promote equality of opportunity for women. It is not possible to predict the size of the Civil Service in future years, but it is to the great credit of the Civil Service that one of the reasons for the decrease in its size during the

past 10 years has been its programme for getting better value for money. That has led to a decrease in the number of civil servants employed, totalling 110,000.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister explain how it can be a credit when the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts of the national insurance fund, published last week, had to qualify that? The report stated that there was a serious lack of skilled resources to tackle deliberate evasion by some employers, with the resulting huge under-collection of national insurance contributions. Will the Minister explain why it takes 30 days for the passport office to process passports and why the civil servants working in the Department of Social Security at Tottenham were on strike a few weeks ago because of understaffing? Will the Minister pay more attention to providing quality standards for the public and stop boasting about the number of civil servants he can cut?

Mr. Luce: Of course, the quality of public services provided by the Civil Service and the Government is a matter of great concern. That is one reason why agencies are being established around the country. One of their main purposes is to introduce performance targets and to improve the quality of service. We already have an outstandingly good Civil Service and we are trying to help it become even better.

Civil Service Training College

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last visited the Civil Service training college; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: I last visited the Civil Service college three weeks ago.

Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of our Commissioners in Brussels has expressed the view that he is better served by higher quality civil servants, than the other Commissioners in Brussels? Is not that a reflection of the high quality of our civil servants and particularly their training?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is quite clear from the evidence of a number of other countries in Europe and elsewhere that are interested in what is happening in the British Civil Service and the introduction of the latest reforms, that there is great admiration for the standard of our Civil Service. The Civil Service college at Sunningdale, which concentrates on senior management, is doing an outstanding job and we should be very proud of it.

Mr. Alan Williams: Surely, pride in the quality of training in no way offsets the worries that the Minister should have about the increasing resignation rate among the high flyers, the fast stream in the Civil Service, as there are increasing differentials between their pay and that of their counterparts outside. What does the Minister have to say about that increasing trend and what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Luce: Although recruitment is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unless the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on one area, there is not a massive loss of high quality civil servants. There is bound to be some interchange, and that is not unhealthy for the Civil Service. We also have secondments,


but certainly we have a much more flexible pay policy, which is designed to deal more effectively with recruitment and retention.

Agencies

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress on implementing the agency programme.

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many areas of activity have now been granted executive agency status; and how many new agencies he expects to be created over the next 12 months.

Mr. Luce: Progress is very good. Eleven executive agencies have so far been established and I expect many more shortly. The first agencies are achieving tangible improvements in the efficiency and quality of Government services.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made. Will he confirm, despite the disgraceful and partisan scare campaign, that those who work in the agencies enjoy Civil Service conditions of work and Civil Service pensions?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. When an agency is established, that does not mean that the civil servants automatically lose their status. On the contrary: they remain a salient part of the Civil Service, and unless, after consultation, their conditions are adjusted, those also remain the same. There is now a great speeding up in the introduction of agencies. There will be a major introduction with the employment service becoming an agency next month, and I expect that by the summer a large proportion of the Civil Service will be moving in that direction.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the 11 agencies already established, when the 43 agency candidates identified become agencies, more than one third of the Civil Service will have done so? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives a better sense of identity to the employers in those agencies and will answer the Comptroller and Auditor General's report when the collection of employers' contributions comes under an agency?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. All the candidates—which now amount to 44, including the DSS contributions and benefits agencies—amount to one third of the Civil Service. We are now making steady progress and with the introduction of a large number of agencies this spring and summer, the Civil Service will begin to transform in a major way.

Mr. Loyden: Has the Minister any plans to reduce the number of civil servants who administer the benefits system as a prelude to its privatisation, which I understand may lead to an American firm operating it?

Mr. Luce: That subject is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. A decision has been taken to create two large agencies to

administer the benefits and contributions functions of the Department of Social Security. Under our agencies policy, we first decide whether services are fit to be privatised. If the Minister decides that they are not suitable, the next option is to decide whether they should be established as agencies. As agencies, they remain within the Government system and their staff remain civil servants.

Trade Unions

Mr.Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to meet Civil Service trade union representatives; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

Mr. Luce: I meet the Civil Service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a look at the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which states that about £350 million for the Inland Revenue has not been collected from employers, who have taken that money off employees? Will he ensure that proper inspectors are appointed so that those arrears are collected? Will he bear it in mind that people who claim unemployment and other benefits are being told by the Department of Social Security, "You cannot claim benefit because your employer has not handed over the proper contributions"? If he looks into that and stops hounding one-parent families, he will be doing his job properly.

Mr. Luce: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the creation of those agencies will make the Civil Service ensure that it obtains good value for money. The service already achieves that, but the creation of the agencies will move us further in that direction and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that objective.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to eliminate racial discrimination in the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: The Government are an equal opportunity employer. They have a range of policies to prevent racial discrimination and are drawing up a formal programme for action to increase equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin, which I plan to launch in May.

Mr. Wardle: Is not it essential that the Civil Service leads the way in this country, in ensuring that racial discrimination does not affect the progress of anyone at work?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the policy of equality of opportunity, it is right to have a positive action programme for such subjects. About 4·2 per cent. of ethnic minorities are represented in the Civil Service, which roughly reflects the working population. They are not represented at senior level, but we must ensure true equality of opportunity.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, dear. I shall take the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) first.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the current edition of The House Magazine?

Mr. Speaker: But I do not have responsibility for that.

Mr. Holt: I know that, Sir, but you do have responsibility for your instruction on taxis at the Members' entrance. Consequently, I should like to draw your attention to an article written by Simon Heifer, in which he threatens Members of Parliament. He says that journalists are keeping a "list of offenders" of Members of Parliament who exercise their right to take precedence at the taxi rank.

Mr. Speaker: It does not seem to be a matter of great parliamentary moment.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry that you, Mr. Speaker, do not see this as important, but then you do not have to queue up for a taxi. The article says that at least one of the journalists
is keeping a list of offenders, some of them occasionally look to the press to report uncritically their views on certain important matters. Should they be concerned about the future quality of that reporting, a little less urgency
will be required.
There is an order at the Members' entrance in your name, Mr. Speaker, stating that Members will take precedence. In the light of the threat in that article, will you kindly look into this and let us have your views?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is such a notice. I hardly think that the hon. Member needs my protection in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—that one.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Skinner: I think that you could have responded to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who referred to not being able to get a taxi, by saying that, if he hangs around a little longer, he will find that some ministerial cars are empty. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes inquiries of the Secretary of State for Wales and asks the Prime Minister how many more Cabinet Ministers whispered in her ear last September, "Give it a few months—I shall be leaving."

Mr. Speaker: There are many things that I might have said to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). The House knows that the Services Committee has reported on this matter and that precedence is indeed given to Members who require a taxi.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It cannot really be further to the point of order.

Mr. Haynes: Well it is, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Is it really? Very well.

Mr. Haynes: I do not know whether you are aware of the all-party cycling group. I suggest that you tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to join it, and get some of that weight off.

Mr. Speaker: Good idea.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: May I raise a serious and genuine point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? I know that that sounds unusual. On the proper day laid down for questions to the Department of Trade and Industry, I tabled a question to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the trends in manufacturing industry productivity over the past 12——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the question transferred, or disallowed?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It was transferred. None of my questions would be disallowed—all my colleagues know that. I came to the House today in my usual innocent manner and found that my question had been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not mention interest rates, where the Exchequer always likes to get its hand——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Surely I can finish my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must have heard dozens of times——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member has, because he is in the Chamber regularly. This matter has been put to me dozens of times. I have no responsibility for the transfer of questions; that is entirely a matter for the Goverment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: May I continue once more, Sir? I hate to bore you, but surely you, as Mr. Speaker, are in charge of allowing Members to ask questions of Secretaries of State without them, as in some kind of Russian roulette, changing them so that no one has to answer. If a Secretary of State does not want to answer a question, he can transfer it to someone else, which means that the Member concerned will not have a chance to ask that question for another month. We must have some protection against this transfer system.

Mr. Speaker: It has ever been thus. Ministers who believe that they have no responsibility——

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is getting desperate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will listen to me, not to Members across the Gangway.
It has always been a fact that Ministers transfer questions if they are not within the responsibility of their


Department. I feel sorry for the hon. Member, because this occasionally happened to me, but he must take up his complaint with the Department concerned.

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt it has been reported to you that there was a bit of bother in the Chamber on Friday, because we did not reach the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill, which would have given pensions to veterans who had taken part in nuclear tests. During the filibuster on the Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) failed early in his speech to declare his interests. It was only after the intervention of about five Opposition Members that the hon. Member said:
I shall eventually come on to the part of my speech in which I declare that interest."—[Official Report, 2 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 551]
I then quoted, at column 552, "Erskine May":
A Member will normally declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks.
Later——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is quite right: I was not present on Friday. However, I always look at Hansard. I see, in column 551, that this very matter was dealt with by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that; there is nothing more to be done about it now.

Mr. Boyes: If an hon. Member, on either side of the House, has an interest to declare, the person in the Chair must at some time determine whether or not that Member has spoken for long enough to have declared his interest. On the basis of Friday's interpretation, a Member could make a one-hour speech and declare an interest only in the 59th minute. Before his declaration, a number of points affecting the whole debate might have been made. "Normally" has to have some specific meaning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back on this matter. However, later this week there will be a debate on the whole matter of Members' interests. The whole House knows the rule: that if an hon. Member on either side of the House——

Mr. Skinner: That debate is about John Browne's body.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that, if a Member has a personal interest to declare, he should always declare it.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, not a bogus one. It is very relevant, and I am sure that you will be able to give a decision on it. Last Thursday—St. David's day—we debated Welsh affairs for six hours. During that time, the Secretary of State for Wales had an opportunity to announce his impending retirement. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received from the Government any notification concerning a statement regarding——

Mr. Speaker: No. I am afraid that points of order do not come much more bogus than that.

Orders of the Day — Aviation and Maritime Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN MEASURES TAKEN UNDER PART III

".—(1) The provisions of this section have effect where, in compliance with a direction under section 24 of this Ad or in compliance with an enforcement notice, the person to whom the direction was given or on whom the notice was served takes any measures consisting of the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside a harbour area.

(2) If the value of any interest in that land to which a person is entitled is depreciated in consequence of the taking of those measures, or the person having such an interest suffers loss in consequence of them by being disturbed in his enjoyment of any of that land, he is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or loss.

(3) If any land other than the land on which the measures are taken is injuriously affected by the taking of those measures, any person having an interest in that other land who suffers loss in consequence of its being injuriously affected is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the loss.

(4) Any compensation to which a person is entitled under this section shall be payable to him by the person by whom the measures in question were taken.

(5) The provisions of Schedule (Provisions relating to compensation) to this Act have effect for the purposes of this section; and subsections (1) to (4) above have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule."—[Mr. Portillo]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we are to discuss Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Portillo: This Bill is a serious measure dealing with serious matters. I think that every member, from which ever side of the House, of the Standing Committee would agree that it was considered very seriously in Committee and that Government, Official Opposition and SLD Members made their best contributions to try to improve its wording. For that, I pay tribute to all concerned.
New clause is accompanied by Government amendment No. 10, which relates to the schedule that would go with the new clause. The schedule relates to compensation procedures for third parties whose land interests are affected by security measures. This matter was raised in Committee, and the Government indicated that they would introduce appropriate legislation. Both the clause and the schedule parallel existing provisions available under aviation security provisions.
Although, when the Bill was drafted, it was not envisaged that such compensation facilities would ever be needed—indeed, experience of the aviation provisions supports that view—it seems right to have a system available to ensure that no third party would ever be unduly penalised by security works. The compensation will be paid by the person who carried out the work required by a direction. It would be for him to decide how


to finance the cost of the compensation, although, in all likelihood, it would be treated in the same way as any other security provision cost.
Despite the probably infrequent use of this clause, I commend its addition to the Bill as a necessary safeguard for, and help to, those people indirectly affected by the Bill's proposals.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) in particular was worried about how disagreements on levels of compensation might be settled. The proposed schedule in amendment No. 10 is modelled on a schedule that is already available in the Aviation Security Act 1982, which provides that the values will be calculated in accordance with rules laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961.
In the event of any disagreement, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was also concerned about how the costs might be applied to certain people who were affected. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 28(2), which allows that any person given a direction requiring works that affect a third party can object to it because the measures are excessively onerous. The onerousness could come from the level of compensation being sought. The minimum objection period of 30 days could be lengthened by the Secretary of State while the issue is resolved—probably by reference to the Lands Tribunal.
I hope that the new clause, which we discussed in outline in Committee, and the accompanying schedule commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Frank Doran: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the new clause, which, as he made clear, deals with points that we raised in Committee.
I seek clarification of one or two aspects of the new clause. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping led us to expect that, under the new clause, the harbour board would be responsible for all compensation but it now appears that the party who is subject to the notice will be liable for his own compensation. That is obviously progress, although the Opposition remain concerned about a number of matters.
We have a now elaborate system of direction and enforcement notices, set out in legislation and backed by severe penalties but, as I understand it, where no compulsory powers are attached to the operation of the directions, any third party can stifle the operation and intention of a direction or enforcement notice served by the Secretary of State. That is a cause for concern not in respect of the more mundane changes that may be required in security arrangements—day-to-day changes, which are subject to negotiation—but in respect of urgent circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what will happen in such urgent cases.
I also seek clarification of the effect of the notices and directions. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the circumstances in planning law under which property can become blighted. Is it possible that property will become blighted as a result of the service of directions, and what are the implications of that?
On the broader issues, we accept and welcome the new clause, because it takes account of the serious points made in Committee.

Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps Ministers' explanations in Committee were not as clear as they might have been. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has correctly understood that the directions can apply to any party, and that it is the party to whom the directions apply who will be responsible for awarding compensation to third parties who are affected; it could be a harbourmaster, it could be a shipping line or it could be another party.
I hope to go a long way to answering a number of the hon. Gentleman's questions by explaining that it seems likely that in many cases the works that need to be carried out will be works in the harbour area. In circumstances in which the works fall within the harbour area, the Bill settles the matter clearly because the directions within the harbour area overrule any other Act or rule of law—that is made clear in clause 34—and will apply irrespective of anything that might be in contract. If the works are in the harbour, it is clear that the direction takes precedence. The party to whom the direction has been addressed is responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out and can compensate a third party. In other words, the third party may well be within the harbour area.
For example, a harbour authority may be given a direction which required it to construct a wall. That wall may impinge upon a third party—for example, a shipping line which has property within the harbour area. The direction within the harbour area would take precedence over any other Act or rule of law or contract, but the harbourmaster would arrange compensation with the third party in that case.

Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have discussed the concerns of the British Ports Federation on this point and the requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the Bill to order harbour authorities to demolish or alter buildings. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new clause has the agreement of the British Ports Federation and also meets the precise point with which the federation has been in consultation with the Department of Transport?

Mr. Portillo: I have no further information about what discussions may have continued about that since we last spoke about it. Perhaps I will receive more news during the course of the debate and I will come back to my hon. Friend about that if I do.

Mr. Field: So far as I can understand the new clause, it appears to meet the precise point that the British Ports Federation asked me to make in Committee.

Mr. Portillo: I realise that my hon. Friend made his intervention in a helpful spirit, and I hope to give him some confirmation about that.
In response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I believe that it is rather unlikely that a third party outside the harbour area would be affected. If we were considering the construction of a wall along the boundary of the harbour and the adjoining area, the rules governing party walls, which I understand are general rules to be found in planning law, would apply.
If we were considering a matter that took the harbour authority considerably outside its own terrain, the hon.


Member for Aberdeen, South would be right to say that there was nothing in the new clause to force the third party to grant that the necessary works be carried out. On the other hand, in such an unlikely event, there is a method in the new clause to settle the compensation.
To show how unlikely that event is, I should say that, during the time that the equivalent provisions have been in operation for aviation security, there have been no cases in which such compensation has had to be paid. Whereas most cases are likely to be within the harbour area, it is likely that the parties would agree among themselves on compensation. If a direction was given to the harbour authority and perhaps a corresponding direction to a shipping company and each must carry out works, I imagine that they would probably agree between themselves on appropriate compensation, although there is a fallback, in that it can be referred to the Lands Tribunal.

Mr. Doran: What about blight?

Mr. Portillo: It seems most unlikely that blight will arise. The probability is that the works would be within the harbour area. I cannot see blight occuring within a harbour area, and that would not be blight in any commonly accepted way. I find it hard to imagine, except perhaps through the building of a wall along a boundary, what works would go far outside the harbour area. That is why the question of blighting does not arise. If, on reflection the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South believes that there is a point to pursue on that, perhaps he can take it up with me in correspondence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNERS, CHARTERERS AND MANAGERS

'.—(1) Any direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act shall be given first to the owner, charterer or manager of a ship in respect of which such a direction may be given.

(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act to the master of a ship only after the Secretary of State's best endeavours have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager with a similar direction in respect of that ship.'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3. 
Amendment No. 11, in clause 29, page 32, line 7, after 'Act)', insert,
'provided that the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager of a ship with the direction to which such an enforcement notice relates,'.
Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Government amendment No. 15.

Ms. Ruddock: The new clause follows on from the debate in Committee, in which we sought unsuccessfully to remove "master" from clause 17 and to insert "master" in subsequent clauses. Our purpose, then as now, was to recognise the reality of the world in which shipmasters operate.
In the Bill as originally drafted, the Government had implicitly recognised the difference between masters and the other three categories of persons, namely, the owners, charterers and managers, to whom directions might be given or from whom information might be sought. A distinction was made between foreign and British-owned ships. It was clear to us, and the Minister admitted in Committee, that the master of a foreign ship was being drawn into the provisions of the Bill simply because he was thought to be more accessible than the owners, charterers or managers. Opposition Members argued then and we still maintain that the onerous responsibilities and penalties that are imposed by the Bill should fall on those who have the resources and authority to comply.
Our new clause is an attempt to recognise those realities while accepting the Minister's intransigence. In new clause 2, we propose that when a direction is given, it is
given first to the owners, charterer or manager".
In a consequential amendment, No. 11, we provide for an enforcement notice to be served on a master only when
the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager".
The National Union of Maritime, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers complained bitterly that misconceptions about the power and authority of a shipmaster abound and that the law is being framed as though a master has complete control of his ship and can call on unlimited financial, technical and human resources. The union feels strongly that the Bill would place responsibilities on masters that legislators would not dream of placing on captains of aircraft.
A recent article on masters by Michael Gray in Lloyd's List states:
Rich in responsibility but poverty stricken in authority would seem to sum up the wretched modern master and his miserable life afloat.…in port after port come the legions of those earnestly requesting the master's signature to sign his life away, to commit himself to all manner of circumstances over which he cannot possibly have any control whatsoever. He is required to take responsibility for matters well beyond his actual minimal authority. And no matter how energetically he notes protest, how carefully he seeks to absolve himself from the consequences of his actions, it is his signature that is on the document, it is he who is ultimately liable.
According to the article, at a recent conference, Captain Colin Evans, the secretary general of the International Federation of Shipmasters' Associations, said that he believed that
the burden on shipmasters had increased beyond the bounds of reason.
He saw a combination of factors conspiring against the master's peace of mind—tight manning, the multi-cultural crew, ever increasing pressure to sail, to stand on, to arrive in time. The master, said Captain Evans, was just not given the resources or the authority to enable him to do his job properly.
It is in recognition of the facts as presented to us by NUMAST that we move new clause 2. Without that clause, Government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be justified.
Briefly, the amendments would ensure that the same duties are imposed on masters of British ships as are imposed on masters of foreign ships. That is a retrograde step, because the real responsibility, whether they are British ships or foreign ships, lies with the owners, charterers and managers. We seek to place responsibilities on masters of British ships. It was previously acknowledged that the inclusion of "masters of foreign ships" was


an expedient because it was most likely that masters could be contacted more easily than those who are actually responsible.
Surely it must be acknowledged that a master, in seeking to comply with a demand for information or with the onerous directions for search and so on, must consult his employers. He will undoubtedly need to do that, because they undoubtedly have the authority and resources. We believe that that is where responsibilities should properly be placed. Therefore, I have moved new clause 2 to give effect to those feelings.

4 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): We cannot accept the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). For certain directions we have introduced an ability to give a direction to a master. There was considerable disquiet on this point among Opposition Members, but after considering their points, we feel that they are wholly unjustified. We shall extend the possibility of giving directions to masters only to matters on which they are competent and responsible to act. As they cannot be given directions under clause 24—the main direction-making power which can require measures to be taken—no liability is placed on them to take decisions which involve capital expenditure. That, of course, is the responsibility of the ship operator.
Masters will be likely to receive only directions which require information or prohibit them from allowing people or property to be brought near or on a ship, from allowing the ship to go to sea unless searches are carried out and from allowing a ship to go to sea unless certain modifications are carried out. All those matters are within the master's scope of responsibility.

Ms. Ruddock: The measures which the Minister suggests that a master might have to take are serious measures when it comes to commercial interests. It is our view that the master could not, or would not be willing to, undertake such measures unless he could consult the owners, operators or charterers.

Mr. McLoughlin: The issues may be serious but so would the reasons why the directions were issued. We are not in the game of issuing directions for the sake of it. We are not taking the power to issue unnecessary directions or directions for minor reasons. Directions would be issued for serious reasons. They would be issued only where necessary and where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it was not possible to implement the same action against the ship operator.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why does the Minister have such objection to this modest new clause? All it says is that the Secretary of State "may" give directions. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to take a reserve power to cover all eventualities? No one expects the Minister to give directions to a master for minor reasons. Surely, in the interests of security and safety, the widest powers should be available in case they are needed.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is exactly what we seek to do throughout the Bill. We seek to provide the widest powers

possible, so that, in the eventuality, we have the right measures to require various operators to take the action that we require. If we have trouble finding the operators—I shall come to this when I deal with the Government amendments—we want to be able to serve notices on the master of the ship, because sometimes it may not be possible to trace the owners or operators as quickly as we should like.
I understand that it is convenient to speak now to Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15. Following the debate in Standing Committee, the Government undertook to take steps to remove the discrimination in the application of legislation to British and foreign ships. First, clause 21, which contains a power to impose restrictions on ships, can now be applied against both British and foreign ships when they are in harbour areas.
I stress that those powers of direction will not be the main way in which improvements in security will be implemented. Most directions to create a positive improvement will be given under clause 24—that is, the general powers to direct measures to be taken. The powers provided in clause 21 are for use only in certain circumstances.
I hope that my next point goes some way to answer the hon. Lady's point about amendment No. 11. We have introduced an ability to give a direction to a master. Again, the considerable disquiet about this point is not justified, because we shall extend the possibility of giving directions to masters only on those matters on which they are competent and responsible to act.

Mr. Doran: Does the Minister accept that our apprehensions relate not to his intentions, but to the way in which the law will operate in practice? As was made clear in Committee—and accepted by the Minister then—in every case the first line of contact will be the master, and no attempt will be made to contact the owner, charterer or manager, because whoever is responsible for enforcing the direction will go to the most obvious point, the master. We have tabled our amendments for that simple reason.

Mr. McLoughlin: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I can only assure him time and time again that only if there are problems with contacting or communicating directly with the operator will we use the powers to contact the master. It would be wrong of us not to have those powers. That is why we have tabled our amendments and why we feel that the master needs to be included in the "final line".
If we have trouble in contacting the operator, we need to be able to contact the master. I emphasise that security reasons may be involved and that we would not do that lightly. We do not want to take that action at every stage, but if it is difficult to contact a foreign operator for whatever reason—there may be many reasons—we should be able to tell the master of the vessel that certain actions are required of him. We need the power in statute to do that. That is important.
The concern was raised in Committee, and in various other discussions with me, that we were somehow discriminating against British ship operators in favour of foreign ship operators. We had to do everything we could


to explain that that was not the case and that we were taking the action so that ships of whatever nationality would be obliged to abide by what we are asking.

Ms. Ruddock: Even if Government amendment No. 1 is made, the clause still provides a seven-day period during which the information has to be given up. How often does the Minister think that the master of either a British or a foreign-owned ship will be in harbour for as long as seven days? Does not that period give the Minister ample time to contact the real owners, charterers or managers?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. It is certainly true that modern ships and shipping operations are in harbour for only a brief period. That is why we need the power, if necessary, to place that responsibility and request on the master if we are having trouble in getting hold of the operator. That is an important point.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose——

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I should like to make some progress.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise for not having scrutinised the Bill in detail, because the answer to my question may be there. Has the Minister taken the power to prevent ships from sailing if there is difficulty in contacting the owners or in getting the master to carry out the directions?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes: if the direction is not carried out, we have the power to prevent the ship from leaving the harbour until the direction is complied with. We have that power, and it is wholly right that we do. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that point—there was certainly no difference on it in Committee.
If an elimination process were written into the Bill, it would inevitably cause delay, during which the ship could disappear because no prosecution or enforcement action could be effected unless it could be proved that adequate steps had been taken to reach the operator before tackling the master. A month may be necessary to convince the courts that adequate time had been given and reasonable steps taken for notifying foreign-based operators. To avoid this procedural trap and yet acknowledge and mitigate the concerns of the Opposition, it would probably be best to offer an assurance that, wherever practicable, action will always be taken against the operator first. We give that overwhelming assurance. It must be acknowledged, however, that the powers are needed at the end of the day.
No liability would be placed on the master of a ship to take decisions which involved capital expenditure. Such decisions are the responsibility of ship operators. Masters will be likely only to receive directions which require information or prohibit them from allowing people or property to be brought near or on their ship, or for the ship to go to sea unless searches are carried out or certain modifications are implemented. All these requirements come within the scope of a master's responsibility. The powers will be used only where necessary and where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is not possible to impose the same requirements on a ship's operator. The provisions are far more likely to be used when dealing with the masters of foreign ships, as it is those ships that will present the most problems when it comes to locating the operators and achieving the desired results.
We are not legislating to ensure that only foreign ships implement the measures that we feel are required. Several foreign shipping lines have voluntarily introduced high levels of security standards. We want to be able to take the powers which we consider necessary. We shall always attempt, first and foremost, to contact the ship's operator and require him to give us information. When that is not possible, we feel that it is necessary to be able to serve a request upon the master of the ship. A master has considerable responsibility for the overall conduct and safe transit of his vessel.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are essentially editorial. They represent an attempt to be more specific about the way in which administrative matters connected with the detention of a ship are implemented. Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that it is for an authorised person to certify that a direction has not been complied with. Amendment No. 6 places a requirement on an authorised person to deliver the certificate to the officer to detain the ship, if he does not use his powers to detain the ship himself. In both instances, a master must receive a copy of the certificate when his ship is detained, so that he knows the reasons for the detention.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) will agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet some of the issues which were raised in Committee.
In Committee, we undertook to remove discrimination in the application of legislation to British and foreign ships. Amendments Nos. 15 and 7 ensure that that will happen, in two ways. First, the prohibition powers that are contained in clause 21 will, if the amendments are agreed to, be applied against both British ships and foreign ships when they are in harbour areas. These powers of direction will not be the main way in which we shall implement improvements to security. Most directions relating to positive improvements will come under clause 24. The powers in clause 21 are for use only in certain circumstances.
I ask the House to reject new clause 2 and to agree to the Government's amendments.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My concern is about the way in which the Government approach their responsibilities and how vigorously they intend to apply the proposed legislation. When I have approached the marine inspectorate about the alterations made to ships in harbour, which have caused people to believe that they might be unstable, quick action has been taken by the Department to put things right and to prevent a modified vessel from going to sea—this applies especially to trawlers—where there is a fear that safety and life might be endangered. That is something to be applauded.
On the other hand, there have been instances when the Department and other arms of the law have not acted in the proper spirit of the law. I have in mind especially foreign ships where the crews have not been paid Representatives of the National Union of Seamen have tried to prevent ships from sailing until the crews have been properly paid. However, the police are brought in. the representatives of the NUS are taken off the ship and arrested, the crew are simply placed on the quayside and the ship sails merrily off, having not met its international obligations and responsibility to members of the crew.
I seek from the Minister an assurance that he will act vigorously not only within the letter of the law as it will be when the Bill is passed, but within the spirit of it, so that there is no shilly-shallying. I hope that there will be nobody saying, "It's a bit difficult. It may be a marginal case so we will let things go." We have to be specific, rigorous and determined to apply the law. If the Minister gives that assurance, and subject to the advice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I will not vote against the Government's amendments.

Mr. Barry Field: I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that the amendments meet the concerns expressed by the General Council of British Shipping about foreign vessels and the ability of the Secretary of State to get to grips with them. If that is the case, as I believe it is, the deputy director-general of the council, Jim Buckley, has asked me to convey the council's gratitude to my hon. Friends for their acceptance of these amendments.

Mr. McLoughlin: I was surprised by what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, because it seemed to be more in accord with our views than those of his Front Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Robert Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. McLoughlin: I see him denying that, and I do not want to embarrass him.
We are introducing a new kind of legislation, which is a mirror image of the security set up in the aviation industry as much as possible, although one cannot tie up the two word for word because of some differences. As a result of this legislation, we shall have on the statute book a set of directions that we can make and require companies to carry out. In such circumstances, I am conscious that it would be wholly wrong if foreign vessels were allowed to operate under a different set of rules from British operators and vessels. This legislation is designed solely to meet security directions, so it would not be a proper use of the legislation to extend it outside that power. That is an important point, but I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the wider implications for the shipping industry.
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) the assurance that these amendments meet the various points brought to our attention by the General Council of British Shipping. I have explained some of the reasons why we have accepted them, one of which is that it would be wrong to introduce regulations applying to British shipping but not to foreign vessels. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I hope that they find favour with the House.

Ms. Ruddock: We are most disappointed by the Government's response to new clause 2, because we tried to produce a compromise. In Committee, the Minister assured us, as he has been assuring us all afternoon, that there will definitely be an attempt to contact, first and foremost, those who are truly responsible—the owners, the charterers and the managers. We are delighted that he has made that clear, but because he has done so, we find it difficult to understand why, after we has so carefully introduced this compromise and tried to reach agreement

with him, he has been unable to accept the new clause. However, as he has made his position clear and I do not expect to persuade him any further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF FIXED PLATFORMS

'For the purposes to which this Act applies, the Secretary of State may give a direction in writing to any person who operates, owns or manages a fixed platform, requiring him to take such measures as are specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. Doran].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Doran: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 10, in page 15, line 6, leave out
'or by threats of any kind'.
No. 14, in clause 11, in page 15, line 27, at end insert—
'(c) by its nature or design, is intended to raise the apprehension that it is intended to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform, or endanger the safe navigation of a ship, or safety of a fixed platform.'.

Mr. Doran: New clause 3 relates to discussions that we had in Committee, when I set out in detail events when a hoax bomb was planted on a gas production platform in Morecambe bay.
One matter that caused me concern when I read the details of the event was trying to relate it to what the Government propose in the Bill, which creates more that 40 new offences—some of them serious and carrying the most serious penalties—and a mass of restrictions and regulations, and a bureaucratic system of direction and enforcement. However, nowhere in the Bill have the Government or industry been given the responsibility to do the simplest thing—to train and to prepare for the type of events that occurred on that platform.
New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to give directions which would apply to owners and managers of fixed platforms to meet the gap in the legislation.
For the benefit of hon. Members who were not able to hear the Committee proceedings, I shall summarise the circumstances surrounding the events on the CCP gas production platform in Morecambe bay which was operated by a subsidiary of British Gas.
On 9 October 1989, at about 8.30 am, a suspected bomb was found on the platform. None of the men on the platform was notified until about one hour later, and then they were not given detailed reasons why they were expected to gather at the muster points and life stations. It was not until a quarter past ten in the morning that the men were told that a bomb had been found, and that caused some alarm. It transpired that a taped package, measuring 6 in by 7 in, with wires that appeared to be a timing device attached, had been found in a cellar close to one of the 26 in gas riser pipes coming on to the platform. A number of such high pressure pipelines come on to the platform and all the men knew that they were of the same sort that exploded on the Piper Alpha platform and caused that tragedy. Therefore, there was some concern among the work force.
The men were kept at the muster stations in the recreation area until 2.30 pm, when the installation's


operations manager decided to address them. He told them little more than they had been told in the morning, but he confirmed that the bomb had been found and that bomb disposal squads were not expected until 4 o'clock. Again, that caused some concern.
The men were aware that the package had been discovered at 8.30 am, and they were also well aware from all the hectic activity around them—the naval vessels and helicopters—that experts who would have been able to deal with a bomb were in the area because of the Conservative party conference which was taking place a few miles away in Blackpool. They could not understand why the experts could not reach the platform any sooner than 4 o'clock, despite the fact that the bomb had been found about eight hours previously.
The men were not told until 6 o'clock that the bomb disposal squad had decided to try to blow up the suspected bomb, and that also caused considerable concern. The men were aware that attempts had been made to depressurise the pipelines, but one had not been depressurised and the consequences of a bomb exploding in those circumstances would have been horrific.
Throughout the day, there had been some panic and pressure from the men to get off the platform, but none was allowed to leave. They were threatened that if they went off they would not be allowed back. Effectively, they were told that their jobs were on the line. I have told that story because it is a graphic example of a real emergency. I understand that legal proceedings are likely to follow.
As it took place on an offshore installation, the incident relates at least to part II of the Bill. According to the evidence that I have been given so far, the management dealt with it in a way that could not possibly be described as skilful; it could, indeed, have been calculated to cause the maximum distress. The men had no idea what to do. The arrival of the specialist bomb disposal experts was considerably delayed, and all their requests to be evacuated were refused. Although the package proved eventually to be a hoax, no one knew that until the disposal squad had dismantled it; meanwhile, unnecessary distress was caused. That could easily have been dealt with by management, who could have evacuated the platform.
In the Bill, the Government have created more than 40 new offences. They have also created a very bureaucratic system of direction and enforcement notices, yet the Secretary of State has not been given the simple power to require training and exercises to deal with such incidents. The problem is not hypothetical; oil and gas platforms are vulnerable, volatile and dangerous. In the event of a further hoax, or even the placing of a real explosive device on a platform, the men must not be subjected to such pressures again.
In Committee, the Minister said that he would contact the Department of Energy as a matter of urgency, and I shall be interested to learn whether the Department has any lessons to pass on. In the meantime, the new clause would allow the Secretary of State to enforce a requirement for training and exercises.
Amendment No. 13 would deal with a problem that was raised on Second Reading—threats against the work force. Industrial disputes have occurred on offshore installations, and I fear that there will be more this summer as a result of offshore unrest and dissatisfaction. Few people in the industry do not expect that to happen. On

previous occasions, men working on North sea platforms have been subjected to intimidation of which an offshore management would not be capable.
I can give two examples. The first relates to industrial action taken on MSV Stadive earlier this year. The ship is used in the northern sector of the North sea, in the Shetland basin, as a special response vessel: it is expected to respond to emergencies, and its crew have already dealt with two highly publicised incidents. The first involved the Chinook helicopter disaster in 1986, when they were required to collect bodies; the second was the serious blow-out 18 months ago on the Ocean Odyssey drilling rig, in which a radio operator was killed.
The vessel's crew were required to remain with the vessel, which was positioned over the blow-out well for about three weeks until the emergency had been dealt with and the well capped. It was a dedicated crew. The men were employed by a company that acted as contractor for Shell UK Ltd. Recently, Shell UK Ltd. decided to dispose of that contractor and to employ a new one. Most of the men had worked for the contractor for nine years; some of them had been there for 15 years. All were told that they were to be made redundant. If they had been working onshore, they would have had certain rights; their employers would have been under an obligation to them.
As the men appeared to have no rights, the employers entered into a battle about who would be responsible for redundancy payments. The men were left high and dry in the middle. Industrial action followed. Every member of the crew was intimidated and threatened with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which provided for a maximum fine of £2,000. That ended the industrial action. All the men were sorely intimidated.
4.30 pm
According to the drafting of the provisions, an employer faced with industrial action would be entitled to threaten his men with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which might lead to a £2,000 fine, and with the provisions of clauses 9 and 10, and to say that an offence had been committed. The maximum penalty in that case would be life imprisonment.
The Minister has told me that any prosecutions under this measure would require the sanction of the procurator fiscal or the Crown Office. That would carry little weight with a work force that was engaged in an industrial dispute that was perfectly legal onshore. The evidence shows that employers would use such threats and that the work force would be intimidated. For that reason, therefore, we have tabled amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 14 is designed to deal with what was perceived in Committee to be a major gap in the legislation. I relate it to the incident in Morecambe bay. The Bill deals adequately with threats and offences. However, it does not deal with the hoax which, as the Morecambe bay incident showed, can be just as alarming as a real threat or incident. According to the amendment, any substance or package that raises
the apprehension that it is intended to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform, or endanger the safe navigation of a ship, or safety of a fixed platform
would also constitute the kind of offence that appears to have occurred on the CCP platform on 9 October. In Committee, all sides appeared to accept that that was a serious gap in the legislation. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's response.

Mr. Portillo: I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that part II is intended to allow the United Kingdom to ratify and implement the provisions of the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against safety of maritime navigation, which is known as the Rome convention, and the linked protocol, which is known as the Rome protocol. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, we laid considerable emphasis on the need to establish in law very exact wording that was in line with the convention and the protocol. Under the convention and the protocol, all those who ratify the convention should introduce legislation that is more or less identical, so as to ease the extradition from one country to another of those who have committed offences. If the offences are defined in exactly similar terms, that process is considerably eased. For that reason, we are reluctant to deviate from the wording in part II. I admit that the part of part II relating to warships is outside the convention, but it does not touch in any way upon the wording of agreements under the protocol. I have difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's proposals on that point.
I shall take the amendments in reverse order. The matter raised in amendment No. 14 is already covered by section 51 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I did not say to the hon. Gentleman in Committee that I thought there was a gap. The hon. Gentleman will know rather better than I do that United Kingdom law applies on platforms by virtue of the Continental Shelf Act 1989. Subject to further comments that the hon. Gentleman might make, his point about somebody introducing a package which is meant to look like a bomb and cause anxiety or fear is extremely serious, but is already covered in United Kingdom law which I hope applies to platforms.

Mr. Doran: The Criminal Law Act 1977 certainly applies to gas platforms in the southern sector and to the gas platforms in Morecombe bay, but it would not apply to installations in the Scottish section of the North sea—those lying off Aberdeen and Shetland. There may be an equivalent measure, but that is a different point.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman helps me by saying that there may be an equivalent measure. I suspect that that is the case, but I shall try to get him some verification of that.
On amendment No. 13, I had hoped that, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I had gone a considerable way to allay the hon. Member's fears. I had hoped that I had gone so far as to make it possible for him not to introduce a further amendment on the subject. Perhaps I can remind the hon. Gentleman how far I went in Committee:
I offer the hon. Gentleman some further comfort by telling him that, in Scotland where prosecutions are initiated by procurators fiscal, they have considerable discretion but are subject to directions from the Lord Advocate. When a new Act is introduced, the Lord Advocate circulates information and sets out the policy on prosecutions. I shall draw his attention to this part of the Bill and ask him to take account of the point that it gives effect to a convention on terrorist acts and is not intended to be used in industrial dispute cases.
The hon. Gentleman was generous when he said at column 105:
I am especially grateful to the Minister for suggesting bringing the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate…I am still concerned, although not enough to wish to press the matter to a vote"—
and at column 106:

I take on board all the points that the Minister has made and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment"— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 February 1990; c. 104–106.]
I cannot say any more to the hon. Gentleman today than I did on that occasion. It is perfectly clear—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State confirmed a moment ago in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—that the Bill is about terrorist acts and security, and part II is about the Rome convention and protocol. If the Bill becomes an Act, I shall have no hesitation in fulfilling the undertaking that I gave to write to the Lord Advocate and point out to him the purpose for which the Bill is intended.
In regard to new clause 3, I well understand why the hon. Gentleman was so concerned about the incident which he reported to the Committee, and to which the Committee listened with great interest, and I understand why he would want to raise the matter again. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to draw to his attention the points that the hon. Gentleman made in Committee and to ask him to consider the matter.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman of the point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made in Committee: there is a distinction between the measures proposed in the Bill to render more secure a platform, ship, aircraft or installation against attack or infiltration and the procedures that should be in place so that an installation may be evacuated in case of emergency. Sound evacuation procedures must be available to deal with a bomb, fire or another emergency.
The matters raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South go beyond the scope of the Bill. They apply to the security of platforms against not only terrorist attack but natural threats such as fire and explosion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has issued the directions necessary for the purpose. Having received the letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and read the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, he may wish to reflect further on them, but at present he believes that new clause 3 is unnecessary.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is responsible for the safety of fixed platforms. He takes the view that a special regime for them is no more necessary than for, say, a large chemical factory on the mainland.
In important respects, fixed platforms differ from ships and aircraft. They do not move, except between operations, and they do not carry passengers or, equally important, passengers' luggage. There is little or no international element involved in them. Although the objectives of new clause 3 are laudable, they are outwith the scope of the Bill.
Although fixed platforms may appear to be sitting targets, they are, fortunately, difficult to approach. or to board uninvited. With sophisticated equipment on board, platform managers know what is approaching and can communicate quickly with the mainland. The police can use their normal powers on platforms, and the ordinary criminal law applies.
I am not saying that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South does not have an important point. He was right to raise his concerns, and I do not blame him for using the opportunity in Committee and on Report to do so, but the proposal to tighten platform managers' response to an


emergency is well beyond the scope of the Bill. I hope that the regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will cover those procedures. The hon. Gentleman has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the opportunity fully to consider those matters, but at this stage he does not wish to establish the special regime proposed in new clause 3.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I must admit to being disappointed by the Minister's response. He rested his case for not accepting new clause 3 or the amendments on the fact that they are well beyond the scope of the Bill. That defence carries little weight, because, had they been outwith the scope of the Bill, they would not have been accepted for debate. They are well within its scope and well worth arguing for.
It is difficult for hon. Members to appreciate the feelings of workers in the North sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and I have had varying contacts with the survivors of Piper Alpha and of incidents such as Ocean Odyssey. Hon. Members think that they have some understanding of the psychology of workers in the North sea, but none of us appreciates the lingering horror for people directly involved in Piper Alpha or for anyone who lived through those dreadful hours from the moment when it was thought to be a minor incident to the sudden realisation of its full horror.
To some extent—perhaps this is a difficult argument to put—the fear of those not directly involved in Piper Alpha is greater than those directly involved. People's minds work differently. Those who have been through a traumatic incident often come to terms with it—some of those involved in Piper Alpha have returned to work in the North sea— whereas others who perhaps only saw what happened are more fearful. That uncertainty is of immense concern.
We are all worried about the time it takes to decide whether to evacuate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South spoke of an incident involving a hoax bomb. Hon. Members' blood must have chilled at the prospect of people hanging about not knowing what was happening, not knowing the location of the suspected bomb and not knowing what might happen if wrong or precipitate action were taken. The security of workers on a platform must be as important as any other consideration.
4.45 pm
A fatal accident inquiry is about to begin into the Ocean Odyssey incident. That inquiry should have begun earlier, but the problem is how all the different arms of Government should dovetail to work together on security.
The Minister takes too narrow a view of security. I understand that the aim of the Bill is security and that its main provisions aim to avoid risk to life and prevent attack from another source. He said that fixed platforms are different from aircraft and ships, because they do not carry passengers and they move only rarely. Nevertheless, baggage is taken on board, and security measures are necessary to check it. If necessary, we must advocate overkill.
The Minister argues that the Bill covers all eventualities, that we are being too cautious and that perhaps we are asking for measures that would be better

covered by another Bill, but there are few opportunities to rectify anomalies or loopholes. Goodness knows when we shall consider another Bill on offshore installations.
I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to accepting new clause 3 or the amendments. I hope that he will carefully read Hansard and accept that we must cover every possible eventuality and ensure that decisions to evacuate are taken earlier rather than later. We all hope that there will not be another major incident, because it is no good saying afterwards, "If evacuation had taken place half an hour earlier, the incident would have been avoided."
We should act quickly and positively on security. That may sometimes mean platform owners bearing a cost that they would rather not bear, but the safety and security of the individual is far more important than temporary loss of production, although that may be expensive.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, which are not harmful or redundant. They offer an extra safety net, and the Minister would do well to accept them; he can do no less if he is interested in the safety and security of workers in the North sea.

Mr. Doran: I should like to take the Minister's points in order. He rightly reminded me of my comments in Committee and of my gratitude to him for saying that he would emphasise the position to the Lord Advocate, but the hon. Gentleman ignored the thrust of my speech, which concerned not so much legal powers and provisions as the way in which they could be used to threaten the work force in a way that would not arise onshore. I do not resile one bit from my comments then. I should be delighted to note what response the hon. Gentleman gets from the Lord Advocate, but that still does not mean that the work force will not be intimidated by the threat of prosecution under these serious provisions.
On the Minister's points about new clause 3, of course the Department of Energy is mainly responsible for the security of offshore platforms. However, I recently received a letter from the Minister which seemed to deny that responsibility. The hon. Gentleman also ignores his Department's responsibility to offshore platforms. As I understand it, the Department of Transport is responsible for firefighting, life-saving and evacuation equipment, and for standby vessels, supply boats and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made clear, we get few opportunities to raise such issues in the House. Nothing in our discussions has suggested to me that the new clause and the amendments are inappropriate.
The Minister must bear the views of the work force in mind. Nearly 30,000 people work in the offshore industry. The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to board an offshore platform and to put on board the type of device that would create problems similar to those in Morecambe bay. He again ignored the practical experience in the North sea. Nearly two thirds of the men who work offshore are employed by contractors, and there is little check on their record. Any sensible terrorist would find that that work provided the easiest route onto the platform. He would not follow the official route or try to sneak up in the darkest hours but would get a job on a standby vessel or with a contracting company. As we noted from the Morecambe bay incident, it is not difficult to get devices on board. Someone learned his way around a platform and planted the hoax device.
I wanted to make two points. First, this matter comes within the Department's responsibility. Secondly, it is clear that there was a breakdown in communications between the management of the platform and the authorities responsible for dealing with the emergency created on the Morecambe bay platform. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is the responsibility of the Department of Energy; his Department has responsibilities.
In the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North about the attitude of the work force offshore after the Piper Alpha disaster, it is not good enough to say that management and the Department of Energy will sort these matters out. Some of us have little confidence in the way in which that Department performs its functions in the North sea. To say the least, there is great scope for improvement, and this is just one example.
We do not intend to push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

EXPENSES INCURRED IN IMPROVING SECURITY

—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State may reimburse to any person who—

(a) is the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or
(b) is the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, or
(c) occupies any land forming part of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, or
(d) is permitted to have access to a restricted zone of such an aerodrome for the purposes of the activities of a business carried on by him, or
(e) is the authority responsible for an air navigation installation, or
(f) is an air cargo agent
the whole or part of expenses incurred by such a person in improving standards of security in any matters within the control of that person.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) determine the form, manner and extent of reimbursement;
(b) make reimbursement subject to approval by the Secretary of State of the expenses proposed to be incurred;
(c) make different provision for different cases.'—[Mr. Snape.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister of State will be relieved to hear that we do not intend the new clause to result in the Secretary of State personally, his two deputies or his Department being responsible for reimbursing security costs. For technical reasons, we were unable to table the amendment that we should have preferred, which would have reinstated the aviation security fund. We did not have a debate on that matter in Committee, but we feel that this is the appropriate stage to have one.
Sadly, all too often over the years, additional security has been introduced only after tragedy or disaster. As long ago as 1986, following the loss of the Air India 747 off the west coast of Ireland, the Select Committee on Transport looked into security at Britain's airports. It recommended

the re-creation of the aviation security fund, which was established by the Labour Government in 1978 and disbanded by the present Administration in 1983.
The Government rejected the re-establishment of such a fund on the grounds that it was bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer, although they neglected to give any figures to back their assertion. They said that the fund's re-establishment would provide little incentive to efficiency. Following the second tragedy, at Lockerbie, the Government said that the industry would set up its own security fund. We should be interested to know from the Minister of State what progress has been made, if any, and whether such a fund is envisaged.
Following the loss of the Air India 747, the Select Committee on Transport, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon Bagier, made a list of recommendations, one of which was the re-establishment of the aviation security fund. In paragraph 56 of the report, the Committee stated:
Although airports and airlines requested that the original Aviation Security Fund be wound up, it is this Committee's opinion that many are far from happy with the consequences. Some of the larger airports—and especially the BAA—may have benefited financially from running their own operation, but security as a whole has not.
Those words were given additional emphasis after the loss of the Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie at Christmas 1988. The Select Committee continued:
The abolition of the fund has encouraged the splintering of security operations away from each other, so that too frequently the priority of security operators is to circumscribe as tightly as possible the limits of their own responsibility, rather than look to the needs of the whole system".
That criticism was echoed by the Transport Select Committee in its latest report on these matters. We are aware that, all too often, the present system appears to be based more upon the persuasive powers of those arguing to extract money from the Treasury than on the security needs of Britain's airports.
The Select Committee report continued:
the Committee again draws attention to the European Parliament 'Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Transport on security at airports' which states 'the main question an institution with legislative powers such as the European Community should ask itself is whether these powers can be used to increase clarity, effectiveness and co-ordination between international and national rules governing security duties at Community airports'. For the reasons explained above, the Committee would encourage the Minister and the Department to pursue assiduously any such initiatives.
We should be interested to hear from the Minister of State how assiduously the Department has been pursuing these initiatives, especially in the light of paragraph 57 of the Select Committee report, which states:
The public is concerned that airport security should be adequate and recent research has suggested that it would be willing to pay for it.
All research, but especially that since Lockerbie, has revealed a similar conclusion—that the public would be prepared to have a fee added to their tickets, to be spent on security. They and Opposition Members believe that, in that way, adequate funds could be made available for the provision of such a necessary facility at Britain's airports. Notwithstanding that report, the Government have not re-established the aviation security fund.
5 pm
Following Lockerbie, the Select Committee on Transport, this time under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), met again. In its report, published in July 1989,


the Committee made similar recommendations and gave some reasons for doing so. Paragraph 30 of the report says:
The levy"—
that is, the aviation security levy—
did provide a means whereby airlines and the travelling public could see how much they were paying for security and make a judgment as to whether that represented value for money. At present, payment for security is subsumed under the general ground-handling charge. If greater security measures are imposed on an airport and they have, for example, to buy more x-ray machines, the cost is either accepted by the airport or passed on to the airlines. If it is passed on to the airlines, they have the choice of whether or not to pass it on to the passenger. Airlines often complain that BAA refuses to give them a breakdown on the amounts spent on security.
In making that complaint, the airlines are not alone. The BAA is not very keen to provide that sort of information to any of us. The authority maintains that, as security is an integral part of airport operations, it is difficult to extract exact financial information on aspects of it. I may be getting cynical in my old age, but I should hazard a guess that, if the aviation security fund were re-established, BAA plc would have no difficulty in justifying claims on it to meet expenditure at the airports that it controls. There would be no argument then about the difficulty of identifying the cost of such operations.
The Select Committee did not accept that argument. Paragraph 30 of the 1989 report, from which I quoted a moment ago, says:
Modern accounting techniques should make it possible to break down the cost of security by specific operation.
So say all of us.
We should be interested to hear from the Minister of State what justification he thinks there is for the BAA's view. Regrettably, the Department of Transport, for the second time, declined to re-establish an aviation security fund. In paragraph XV of their observations on the Select Committee's recommendations, the Government say:
The Government is not convinced by the Committee's arguments for re-establishing an aviation security fund paid for by a levy on passengers. The reasons for winding up the fund in 1983 remain valid despite the need now for substantially larger expenditure on aviation security measures. The fund proved to be bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer.
When civil servants get their teeth into a phrase like that they cannot resist regurgitating it, no matter how many years later they are asked to consider a particular problem. They are good at regurgitating, but they are not particularly good at explaining why they came up with that response in the first place. Again we press the Minister of State to tell us how much the aviation security fund that was set up in 1978 cost to administer over the years, and why he or his Department believe that it was
bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer.
The Government's response goes on:
In the Government's view it did not, and would not if re-established, help forward the aviation security programme.
It is easy to make such statements, but more difficult to justify them. I hope that tonight the Minister will produce some justification for that rather abrupt and sweeping conclusion.
The response continues:
The particular measure mentioned in paragraph 31—the rebuilding of terminals to ensure the proper separation of incoming and outgoing passengers—is being pursued, but the

Government believes that the most cost-effective solution will be achieved if the basic requirement is met by works financed by the airport authorities concerned.
But the airport authorities themselves are the first to complain about the cost of such work. We believe that the reintroduction of the levy to which this amendment refers, and on which the debate concentrates, would go a long way towards meeting those charges.
Paragraph XV of the Government's response concludes:
The Government remains determined that no funding problem shall obstruct the implementation of the measures in the aviation security programme.
Again, the Minister will have to forgive Opposition Members for displaying some scepticism. We all know what financial pressures, whether in connection with security or with any other matter, are put on Ministers and Departments.
We are offering the Government an opportunity to look again at this problem and to tell the House that they will consider sympathetically the re-establishment of an aviation security fund. We ask for no more than that. For the reasons that I have already outlined, we do not ask them to accept the new clause, but I hope that the Minister of State will agree that the present position with regard to the funding of security is unsatisfactory, causes widespread concern among the travelling public, and leads Members on both sides of the House to the conclusion that, all too often, gaps are left in airport security that could be plugged if adequate funds were provided.
We await with interest the Minister's reply. As I have said, this is a matter which—also for technical reasons—we did not manage to discuss in Committee. The re-establishment of such a fund and of such a levy is something that Opposition Members have constantly advocated. Indeed, we voted against abolition of the fund in 1983. It seems to us that its re-establishment would be a comparatively painless means of funding the security measures that we all want to be introduced at Britain's airports. It is a step that would certainly be supported by the travelling public at large and, at least privately, by a good proportion of the aviation industry.

Mr. Peter Fry: I do not often congratulate the Opposition, but I congratulate them today on this new clause. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport since it was set up, I have taken an interest in this subject, especially on the transfer of aviation from the Department of Trade to the Department of Transport. Indeed, it was I who suggested, after the Air India crash, the original study into airport security.
It behoves my hon. Friend to answer the points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). We ought to be told exactly why the unanimous decision of the Committee in relation to the levy was not accepted. We seem to be told, "Don't worry about costs. The money will be provided." The purpose of my intervention is to probe that a little further. We need an assurance that the money will be provided to ensure that adequate security is made available.
One of the first things that the Committee realised when it looked into this matter was that the problem arises from the fact that at any major airport there is dual responsibility for security: it is the responsibility of those: who own and operate the airport and it is also the:


responsibility of the airline. The gaps in security arrangements that often appear arise out of that dichotomy of responsibility.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of international disasters but, as far as I am aware, our airports have not been the cause of any serious security problem. I put it on record that our airports and airlines have an excellent record in this respect, but—and there is a "but"—there is no doubt that those who engage in international terrorism are becoming more and more sophisticated. That means that our methods of detecting terrorists must also become more sophisticated. It would be idle not to accept that many in the aviation industry are concerned about the cost of ensuring a safer travelling scene. When the Committee first looked into the question, British Caledonian was still up and flying. It quoted to us the cost of the machines that it would have to install to satisfy itself that it had done all it could to protect the travelling public, and bluntly told us that it could not afford it.
That leads us to the fundamental question. If the Secretary of State decides that a certain level of search of persons, of aircraft or of cargo is necessary, he must also satisfy himself that the searches will be adequately carried out; otherwise, his reassurances to the travelling public will be empty words. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, we can never achieve 100 per cent. security in relation to aircraft movement, but ever more sophisticated machinery is appearing and could be employed.
We have first to consider the sheer cost of introducing the equipment. How does my hon. Friend imagine that we shall ensure that all the foreign airlines will have the best equipment available to deal with the problem?
Moreover, it is not just a question of equipment: it is also a question of providing the environment in which that equipment can operate. I was appalled to discover on a visit to Gatwick that, immediately after the Lockerbie disaster, one American airline had brought in the most up-to-date piece of equipment to try to check all the baggage that went on its aircraft from Gatwick to the United States and had been told that there was no room for it. It took the British Airports Authority six months to find room at Gatwick to put that machinery into operation.
Given that airline's will to do the best for its passengers, it is worrying to think that the provision of space may inhibit the use of security equipment. We must consider the cost not only of the equipment but of providing room for the equipment to operate properly. I can understand the BAA's point of view, because its room is expensive and it can let it for a variety of purposes at a high revenue. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, if the authority is not willing to give up large spaces at a few moments' notice, which was exactly what happened after the Lockerbie disaster. My hon. Friend must show that sufficient pressure can be placed on bodies such as the BAA to ensure that the necessary space is provided.
No matter how good our security systems may be, the security of passengers flying in and out of this country will also depend partly upon the security at other airports in other countries. One of the main arguments in favour of the levy is that, if properly administered, it would apply not just to our major airports but to our minor airports,

which find it difficult to meet the expense of installing the latest security equipment, and perhaps—with international co-operation—it could be extended to cover other airports, such as those in the Third world, where security is very lax. In the last resort, our security arrangements are truly interdependent and international.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the new clause and try to spell out to my satisfaction proposals suggesting that the Government are aware of the dichotomy between airline and airport in relation to responsibility for security and that he is aware of the problems of the high cost of equipment and of the problem and cost of providing space for that equipment.
5.15 pm
The Committee did not reach its recommendations lightly on either occasion. It reached them in a non-partisan manner and after considerable deliberation. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made clear, we have not really had a satisfactory explanation of why the levy cannot be reintroduced. I believe that airport security perturbs the travelling public, and I think that many people would be happy to pay a reasonable charge for the comfort of knowing that everything is being done that can be done.
The great danger of the present system is that it will give rise to the suspicion that not everything is being spent that might be spent to ensure that the strongest possible security arrangements are made. At one stage in our investigations, we were given evidence, which we were unable to verify, that one improvement to security at Heathrow had not taken place because the budget for that year had been used up. The improvement therefore had to be delayed. We do not want to give the travelling public the impression that money will not be forthcoming to afford them the peace of mind they need.
I hope that my hon. Friend will satisfy me on those points.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is very knowledgeable about these matters, having twice served on the Committee that reported specifically on security matters.
The terrible truth about security is that the price is always too high until people die. Those who say glibly that we have a high level of security at our airports and point to the changes that have taken place even in the past five years do themselves no great credit if they pretend that our service is capable of ensuring that no great terrorist incidents will occur in future, and I know that the Government have never taken that position.
For many airlines, security is an overhead that slips down the accounting priorities as incidents recede into the past. Immediately after a bad crash in which many lives are lost, there is enormous outcry about the facilities that are provided at airports. Unfortunately, it is a question of pounds and pence and, as that pressure recedes, airlines are likely to relax their arrangements. They will not do so consciously—I do not think that they set out to lower their standards—but those of us who use airports constantly—the larger airports are classic examples—know that the sheer press of passengers is leading increasingly to security measures that are not as exhaustive or intensive as they should be.
New machinery is being developed all the time, but one of the safest methods of ensuring that terrorists cannot place explosive devices among innocent travellers going about their lawful affairs is to ensure that proper searching, profiling and investigation take place at the point at which the passenger enters the airport. That is absolutely vital.
El Al representatives would say that the price of security is a life, and that there is no way in which we can put a price on a life. We have a responsibility in this House to tell the airlines that it is not enough to install security companies which, because of the pressure of bodies and freight and the number of people using the services, will inevitably monitor only a tiny percentage of the goods or people flying out of our airports. If that can be said of a country which has suffered the enormous trauma of the Lockerbie crash, how can we expect Third-world countries, which already face enormous problems of overseas debt, to invest in security systems which would safeguard our people?
British people travel all over the world on many different airlines. They have the right to ask that they travel in safety and not in fear. The explosion of air travel in my lifetime means that the modern child regards the aircraft in the way that I, as a child, regarded road transport or trains—as a perfectly routine form of transport. That would be the case but for those who try constantly to find ways to attract the attention of the world to their specific, narrow and murderous interests by destroying forms of transport used by many people.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Transport does not comprise hon. Members from only one political party. It has a wide membership and we have taken very moving and important evidence from those involved in the Lockerbie disaster. The Select Committee examined the manufacture of aircraft and specific problems with the safety of aircraft interiors; those matters will be reported upon in future. Above all, the Select Committee clearly stated that security was a legitimate expense and that, if it was to be provided at the level necessary for safeguarding our people, it had to be paid for.
It would be extraordinary if increasing deregulation lowered the price of air flight for the ordinary passenger but raised the price of providing proper security systems, in such a way that many international airlines began to regard security as an unnecessary expense. We could deal with that problem, and also with the constant battle behind the scenes between the British Airports Authority, the airlines and freight shippers, if we provided sufficient funds to equip and build proper security checkpoints in all our airports—and I mean all. As hub travel develops, more people will come into the airline system at small airports, and they may not always have had their baggage or goods properly checked.
I do not understand the Government's objection to this proposal. They can hardly pretend that they disapprove of taxes that are unwieldy, bureaucratic and expensive to apply. Given that they created the poll tax, that is not a legitimate or feasible response.
The Government believe that passengers are not prepared to pay to ensure that they are travelling safely. Who asked the passengers? Who asked the mothers who put their children on planes to send them back to school four times a year? Who asked the people who take their families on charter flights for their once-a-year holiday?
Who asked the families whose parents are at risk every time they travel from one part of Europe to another on business? I do not believe that the Government have put those questions to the people.
It is too late to consider security issues when we see the front pages of tabloid newspapers carrying horrific pictures of destroyed planes and bodies. One way that we can provide cash is to say to the passenger, "A levy will work and produce results. Will you support us in introducing a levy?" If the Government do not do that, they will be moving responsibility from themselves on to those least likely—even if they are able—to provide the proper quality of service. The cost to this country over the next 10 years may be very high in terms of human life.

Mr. David Wilshire: Before I come to the points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape), I want to comment on a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). He repeated a point that I have heard made so often. He said that one reason why space is not made available at airports, particularly those operated by the British Airports Authority, is that the authority could not be bothered to do that or could not afford it. That is grossly unfair.
I hasten to add that I have no interest to declare in the matter, other than that an enormous number of my constituents work at Heathrow airport, and they always feel slighted when they are accused of doing a shoddy job. However, the issue is not as simple as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.
I assume that the reference by my hon. Friend to the equipment at Gatwick was a reference to the TNA machine. We are not arguing that selling a few pairs of knickers or a few newspapers is more important than safety. The security machines about which we are concerned are very large and heavy and are not readily available. Indeed, the environmental lobby in the United States considers the radiation which those machines emit to be unsafe.
The security machines to which I am referring weigh many tonnes. If they were installed in many of our airport terminals, they would fall through the floor and destroy the terminal.

Mr. Snape: I must confess that I have heard the hon. Gentleman put that argument rather better before. As we are anxious to maintain cross-party consensus on airport security, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the BAA would be as ready to accept a TNA machine, bearing in mind the drawbacks, as it is to install Sock Shop or Knickerbox units around Gatwick airport? Is it not legitimate for some of us to express suspicions that, as there is revenue to be earned from the latter and space to be taken up through the former, the BAA is more likely to opt for commercial occupancy of space at Heathrow than to allocate that space for security purposes?

Mr. Wilshire: Most certainly I would defend the hon. Gentleman's right to make those points, just as I am sure that he would defend my right to say that he is talking absolute nonsense when he suggests that that was the motivation of the BAA or any other airport operator. Of course all airport and airline operators want the best possible security and will fall over backwards to make that possible.

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend believe that it is satisfactory that a machine was present and ready to be brought into operation at Gatwick, but it took six months before that machine was operational? There is no criticism about the commercial nature of the BAA. However, does my hon. Friend believe that a six-month delay was satisfactory, in view of what happened at Lockerbie and the public concern over aviation security?

Mr. Wilshire: When we consider a delay, it is important to be sure how it came about. One of the worst possible things to do with aviation security is to make statements to the effect that we will do this or that in a few moments and everything will be marvellous. That misleads the public and does no good. If it takes a week, a month or even a year to get things right, I shall defend taking the necessary time.
The important thing to consider is that one machine on its own is of no earthly use at all. They are large and they are slow—they do about 600 bags an hour. At peak time at a busy airport such as Gatwick, about 8,000 bags must be screened every hour. It would take until the year 2000 to build sufficient machines to cover all major airports in the world. It is misleading simply to say, "All we need is one of those machines at Gatwick, and bingo—all will be well."

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. His hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made the simple point that a machine was offered for trial, and it took six months to find the necessary space. That point is simple but important.

Mr. Wilshire: I accept that. I thought that I had covered the point that one must do things in the right order. I do not have the facts on exactly why it took six months. I hope that the hon. Lady will give me the facts. If it turns out that there was a delay for the sake of delay—I hold no brief for BAA or for anybody else—and if criticism is deserved—surprise, surprise, I will criticise. However, until I see the evidence, I shall not do so.
My main reason for intervening was to deal with the comments by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I have bad news for him. He made a point about accountants and about BAA's financial procedures. I shall not rise to that criticism, because my experience of accountants over the years——

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me.

Mr. Wilshire: I know that I disappoint the hon. Gentleman. However, as he said, it is a cross-party matter.
My experience of accountants over the years is that, if they must do something, they will end up doing it. If it were to become necessary, I am sure that they could do something. I agree with that. However, I do not agree with the basic premise of returning to a security fund. I recognise the argument that there are good reasons for doing so, but I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will recognise the bad implications. On balance, the bad wins over the good.
I have three concerns about this matter. First, if one specifies how much one spends on security, one is revealing information to those who would like to know exactly what one is doing. One may not consider that on its own to be a justifiable reason, but it is true. My second concern is

that, if we set a sum that should be spent on security, we will invite the response, "Fine, we will spend that, and we will discharge our responsibilities." There should be an open-ended commitment to spend whatever is necessary to provide the best possible security, not to set a sum of money. My third concern is that, if we specify sums of money, which will presumably vary from airport to airport, we will invite comparisons.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that no one had asked the travelling public. I have done research, not on the travelling public but on the maritime sector, in which there is more choice than there is in the use of airports around London—cruise liners. I examined what was happening at the international cruise terminal at Tilbury. The operators said that their charge was £3 per passenger. They said that they were having great difficulties, because the charge at Southampton and elsewhere could be as little as less than £1
People were not flocking to Tilbury because it is the safest place to board a ship. Ship operators were saying "It is cheaper to go to Southampton than to Tilbury, so we will go there." Similarly, passengers were asking, "Why should we pay this much more when, at Southampton, we would pay much less?" I accept that that may be anecdotal, but it is not a one-way argument to say that, the more one charges, the happier people will be.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the 1978 aviation security fund actually worked and how the moneys that were levied from that fund were dispersed around United Kingdom airports for security purposes?

Mr. Wilshire: My reservation is that, however the money is dispersed, one publicly states how much one will spend, and what it will be spent on. Those matters outweigh the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
I am against the amendments giving the Secretary of State powers to pay, because they would lead to the argument, "All right, the Government will pay, so we need not bother." It will result in more buck passing, not less. Airport operators and airlines already try to pass the buck to one another, saying, "The airport should pay," or, "The airline should pay." If we introduce the Government into that, there will be three sides shuffling the buck, and that will make matters worse, not better.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not know whether I should begin by declaring an interest as a frequent air traveller. I suppose that I am in the air about twice a week—sadly, about 100 times a year. Before I give the impression that I am a notorious freeloader or free-tripper, I should say that virtually every trip is between London and my constituency in Aberdeen. I have great experience of how passengers regard security, and the cost of security.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was extremely complimentary to the Opposition. I certainly respond in kind, because I know of his deep interest in the matter. We have always approached it in a non-partisan way and on a fairly uncontroversial note. That is why the remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) are rather surprising. Of course, there are pros and cons in all such matters.
I wholly support the new clause, because it would provide a mechanism whereby money could be found to pay not only for immediate security but for research. It identifies exactly what the costs are and where they are to


be found. I am sometimes nauseated when I occasionally suggest to airline or airport representatives that it will cost money to provide proper security, and they say, "We can't afford it—it will eat into the profits." Security must be afforded. It does not matter how the money is collected; the passenger or cargo shipper pays. Security costs will be passed on by the airport owner, the airline owner or the operator. No commercial organisation in the world would say, "We shall run at a loss to provide proper safety." It is a matter of cost-efficiency and profit making.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, people's perception of safety varies depending on the time of year and how long it is since there was a major disaster.
A major safety measure is that, if baggage is booked on to an aircraft, but the passenger does not get on the plane, the plane cannot fly. All the baggage must be taken off, put on the tarmac, identified and put back on the plane. The baggage of the passenger who has not checked in is then taken away to be examined. It is remarkable how often people book on a flight, get to the airport and check in their baggage, but, for some reason, do not turn up. That has happened to me six times this year on my way to Aberdeen.
Passengers are desperate to get home or to go away on business. There is at least an hour's delay, when baggage is unaccompanied. The passengers' perception is, "Heck, why do we have to hang about so long?" However, they did not say that immediately after Lockerbie. If I have my facts right, the package that caused the Lockerbie explosion was transferred from another plane. British airports' response is that responsibility for baggage checked in at another airport lies with the carrier. I do not agree. If baggage is put on one aircraft and transferred to another, it should be rechecked at every airport. Of course, people say, "What a waste of time hanging about." Generally, if they are asked whether they are willing to spend more on the levy to improve security, they will say yes.
I accept—here I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that the first time that people see a 1 per cent. surcharge for security on their ticket, they will say, "What is all this about?" Of course there are dilemmas, but we must make a judgment.
We must face the dire possibility of a terrorist attack. With modern technology, the terrorist is becoming more sophisticated and clever and may have access to better technology than that available for finding and identifying packages. We must always run ahead and anticipate the threat. We must do a great deal of research into new methods of discovering explosives, timing devices and so on.
Often airport authorities do not appear to use the equipment that they have. I am fed up to the teeth, as many passengers are, with turning up at terminal 1 at Heathrow at busy times to find masses of people queueing from the place where baggage goes through the X-ray machines right back as far as the shops. One is almost forced to buy something in a shop to pass the time. There are four X-ray machines, but seldom are more than two in operation. If there is a backlog of people waiting to pass through, there, is immense pressure on the staff.
We are all irritated by delays, even though we know it is for our safety. When I ask why only two machines are operating, I am told that the staff are not available to operate them. Security staff have asked me to speak to the

British Airports Authority, because they are under tremendous pressure. Every bag goes through the X-ray machine and the staff have to look at every image on the screen. There is a random search of perhaps one in three or one in five bags. There is a great deal of pressure on staff, even though the facilities are there, which can lead to something slipping through.

Mr. Wilshire: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his point about lack of staff at an airport such as Heathrow, will he consider the difficulties of recruiting people? There is not so much a lack of opportunities as a lack of people applying for the jobs. Another difficulty is the requirement to check back over 20 years of a person's previous work experience. That makes it a long job. It can take anything up to 16 weeks before a vacancy can be filled.

Mr. Hughes: There may be difficulties, but the British Airports Authority has never told me that the reason why it has insufficient staff is that it is difficult to recruit or that it takes a long time to check credentials. I have been told that it cannot carry staff over a period simply to cope with short-term busy periods. People cannot be employed between, say, 5 pm and 7 pm when there is a huge mass of people through security simply to sit around for the rest of the day. People usually work shifts of seven or eight hours.
Personnel should be available and on call. All the machines available should be used, not just for the convenience of passengers, although that is important, but in order to make sure that people are not under pressure to let stuff go through. I do not accept that the reason for delays and the lack of staff is that not enough people apply for the jobs. Perhaps, if that is the case, BAA should consider the wages it pays. However, that is not a matter that I shall traverse tonight.
We must examine the methods by which money is found. It is not good enough simply to say that it is up to the airline or the airport authority to provide the cash. They will not provide it if there is pressure on their profits. It is as simple as that. However, the money has to be found. It would be far better to apply a levy to every ticket and for the Secretary of State to reimburse the money.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne cite the example of Tilbury and Southampton. He said that operators would claim as a bonus—I hope that he is listening, because I am responding to his point——

Mr. Wilshire: Avidly.

Mr. Hughes: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show on his face that he was listening.
I do not doubt his word that people say, "Come to Southampton because the security is cheaper than elsewhere." I am surprised that he does not condemn whichever shipping company he was referring to for taking that attitude, instead of using it as a bonus point for his argument. It is disgraceful that people should say, "Come to us because our security is cheaper," as if cheaper security were something that people sought. It is a bogus argument, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman was under the impression that I was saying that cheap security was an advertising plus, I apologise. That was not what I intended to say. I said that both shipping lines and passengers regard security as an opportunity to cut costs. Shipping


lines and passengers appear to prefer cheaper security. I do not applaud that; I deplore it. I was merely observing that that is what happens.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for accepting the point of my argument.
If a percentage of the cost of the ticket is levied and collected centrally, it could be distributed centrally so that there does not appear to be a difference between the cost of tickets at different airports.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman makes his pitch for the idea of a levy collected as a percentage of the cost of ticket, which would be held centrally and disbursed among airports to ensure proper security. Does he accept that security is as strong as the weakest link in the international chain? How would he deal with the problems of international terrorism and inadequate security at other airports—for example, in Third-world countries? To operate properly, any levy system would have to be operated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation on an international basis. Everyone would have to comply with it, because otherwise it would be pointless.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know what proportion of people buy tickets in this country and travel out and back compared to the proportion who buy tickets outside and travel in and out again. If a levy were collected on every passenger's fare, it would be possible to organise collection of the levy from all carriers, whether they originated in Britain or elsewhere. People doing return journeys have to leave the country again. The argument that people who buy a ticket in the United States, for example, do not benefit from the levy because the point of origin is not in Britain, does not hold. Such passengers have to return. There would have to be an international agreement for collecting the money.
I shall not be diverted into a detailed discussion about safety. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) argued that, if one boards a flight outside this country, one does not know the standard of safety. That is true, but there is nothing that one can do about it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of someone who boards an aircraft in another country, whether Japan, Australia or elsewhere. I hope that, if we take the lead, we can persuade other countries to do likewise and enhance the system of security throughout the world.
Carriers and airport authorities wish to provide the safest possible method of travel because that is their business. If a major disaster is caused by terrorist activity, they will lose money through cancellations. However, this is not an issue about cash—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said, the debate is about the price of lack of safety, which is the price of a life.
The new clause would provide a good way of collecting the money and of ensuring that people understand what it is all about. It would also provide the Government with a better opportunity for putting leverage on everyone, to ensure that they do the research and apply the existing equipment as soon as possible.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made not only his own speech but mine. His speech was full of references to previous statements of Government policy. As the Government's policy on this matter is fairly well understood, it may not be necessary for me to dwell on it for long.
Two distinct issues have been raised in the debate. The first is whether there should be Government grants to fund an aviation security programme, and the second is whether we should recycle money from the airlines, through Government, and back to the airports.
The first point about whether there should be Government grants for aviation security is the issue addressed specifically by the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, the new clause is unnecessary, because the power that it seeks to place in the Secretary of State already exists. Under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, as amended by this Bill, the Secretary of State can, with the consent of the Treasury, defray, out of moneys provided by Parliament, all or part of the expenses of the persons described in subsection (1) of the new clause for purposes to which part II of the 1982 Act applies—that is, protection of aircraft, aerodromes and air navigation installations against acts of violence.
I do not wish to extend the list in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposes in his new clause, but the power already exists. I do not want to deny for a moment that the Government have not sought to use that power of making grants for security purposes, because we believe that security should be paid for by the airport, the airline and the passenger. I have no doubt that passengers are willing to pay for it; it is simply a question of how they are asked to pay for it.
I am satisfied with the present arrangements, which are that the Government specify the level of security arrangements that must be made in airports. Money does not enter into those considerations. People are required to meet the directions that the Secretary of State makes, and the Secretary of State makes the directions that he considers appropriate for the level of security he thinks fit, reflecting the degree of risk assessed for him by the security forces from time to time.
I have listened carefully to all the speeches, but no hon. Member has argued that our present security arrangements are inadequate or, if they are, how the directions should be reinforced. I have heard no evidence that finance or lack of finance could be said to be prejudicing the security in our airports. Some hon. Members seemed to assume that, without a fund recycled through the Government, there must be a lack of money and a lack of security provision. That is wholly illogical and fallacious.
The way in which the Government arrived at the present position of wishing to wind up the old aviation security fund and the reasons for doing so were spelt out for Parliament in a statement by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cockfield in another place. Extensive consultations preceded that decision, which embraced not only the airlines and airport operators, but also the British Air Line Pilots Association, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Air Transport Users Committee, the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd. and the International Air Transport Association. At that time, the Government weighed all the pros and cons of having a centralised fund into which moneys were paid and then paid out again.
The Department of Trade was responsible for such matters in those days and considered the measures that applied elsewhere. My right hon. and noble Friend said:
The research showed that in continental Europe, with certain exceptions, airport security duties were generally carried out by national and local police and as a rule were not directly funded by revenue from airport operations. In contrast the research also showed that in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Switzerland, searching was paid for by arlines, and that in the United States and Canada all other aspects of airport security were also, in the end, paid for by the airlines. No other country operated a fund system along the lines of the United Kingdom model.
My right hon. and noble Friend thought that the arguments were fairly evenly balanced, but said that he was concerned that
unnecessary and complex procedures would be avoided, incentives to carry out security measures efficiently would be increased, and cross-subsidisation eliminated, if the fund were wound up and airports and airlines financed security costs in the same way as their other operating expenditure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 1982; Vol. 434, c. 359.]
Therefore, over a period, the Government have been straightforward in explaining how they have arrived at this position.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wanted to know why we thought that it would be bureaucratic and unnecessary to proceed in this way. I remind him that, in the old days, a fund level per passenger had to be set, airport charges had to be collected, payments by the airports had to be made to the Government, claims by the airports and airlines for expenditure that they were to incur had to be made and then assessed and paid by the Department. The net result was that the security measures that the Government required to be taken were paid for by the passenger, but only after that enormous rigmarole, and the great procedure of recycling the money.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know how much all that would cost. If we were were to reinstate it today, it would probably cost my Department about £50,000 for the officials who would be needed to implement the provisions, but that would be only the beginning——

Mr. Snape: Appoint a quango.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman says, "Appoint a quango." I am sure that he would be happy about that, but I believe that that is an unjustified cost, which does not even begin to deal with the costs that would unnecessarily fall on the airline industry. I repeat that the Government's approach is to specify the level of security and to ensure that that level is met—and that has nothing to do with money.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was also concerned that there should be frankness and that the airports should tell the airlines the cost of security. For the sake of brevity, I refer him to what I said at columns 67 and 68 in Committee. I accept that any customer and supplier relationship should result in a willingness by the supplier to account for the reasoning behind his prices, and pointed out that section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that designated airports must have adequate facilities for discussing the management of the airports. The Civil Aviation Authority conducts a quinquennial review of specified airports, covering user charges, including security.
That point also covers many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whom I was pleased to see in his place, because he speaks

with great experience and considerable knowledge of these matters. The question whether up-to-date equipment is made available is really a question about whether the Government have specified the level of security that is to be met. The Government will insist that that level is adhered to by the operators. It has nothing to do with whether sufficient funding is available, because the Government will always require airports and airlines to take such measures.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the difficulties of the Third world. I am not sure that a fund would be the right way to set about the problem. When dealing with the Third world, our problems go far beyond funding. It is not just a question of installing the correct machinery; it is also a question of the training and the discipline that should go hand in hand with it. Each nation that has great experience of aviation is now trying to contact those Third-world countries with which it has a special relationship, so that we can help in a variety of ways to establish the appropriate aviation security programmes. Our own airlines continue to have responsibilities when they operate to those places.
6 pm
Space at airports was debated in Committee. It is our intention that all hold baggage should be screened before it goes into the aircraft. That will take some time to achieve, but we wish to proceed in an ordered fashion towards that goal. We do not wish to find that certain airlines that come first in the queue are pre-empting space. It is important that machines should be installed and measures introduced in the order dictated by the security considerations that prevail in each instance, so that we meet the maximum security risk in the most timely fashion.
Some of the remarks about machinery being installed at airports were rather unfair. These are immensely complex matters that bear on passenger safety, space, and getting things in the right place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, with the TNA machine the issue of radioactivity has to be considered. The necessary certificate from the United States National Radiological Protection Board has only recently been granted. In fact, it was granted last week. As I have said, these are extremely complex matters.
I do not believe that there would be any advantage in recycling moneys in a long and cumbersome fashion, as some hon. Members have proposed. If they are saying that there should be powers for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to be able to defray moneys with the approval of the Treasury, I tell the House that those powers already exist. I have heard no evidence during the debate that our levels of security are inadequate. I have heard no evidence that lack of funding has produced an undesirable situation. I have heard nothing to make me think that the recycling of moneys through a fund commends itself to me any more than it commended itself to Lord Cockfield when a thorough review was conducted, after considerable consultation, in 1982.
The House will be aware of the results which were announced by my noble Friend. I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Snape: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have found the Minister's reply somewhat disappointing. The main thrust of his argument was that


security had not suffered since the abolition of the aviation security levy, because the Government had at all times provided adequate funds. I have before me a draft parliamentary answer which was prepared for the previous Secretary of State for Transport after the Lockerbie disaster. It is the contention of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that aviation security—this was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—comes to the forefront only after a disaster. The Minister of State has told us that funds have never been lacking and security has always been adequate.
In the draft reply, however—it looks as if it was the result of a planted question—there is reference to a package of measures to provide better security at restricted areas, the screening of all baggage and doubling the strength of the Department's aviation security division. Those provisions are introduced directly as a result of tragedy. The contention of the Opposition—it is the unanimous contention of two Select Committees over the past few years—is that these measures could be better provided for financially if adequate funds were made available from the beginning through the provision of an aviation security levy.

Mr. Portillo: Now that the hon. Gentleman has the floor again, will he use the opportunity to make good a deficiency in his previous remarks? Will he demonstrate that there has been a lack of financing or that our security has suffered through a lack of finance, or that it would be improved by recycling moneys in a wasteful fashion through Government?

Mr. Snape: My purpose is to illustrate the argument that security issues arise only as a result of tragedy. Money has not been spent. Had it been available, it could and should have been spent to improve security. If it had been spent in the form of an aviation security levy, perhaps some of the gaps outlined in the draft repy to which I have referred would have been closed earlier, and perhaps before the Lockerbie disaster. I can put it no higher than that.
I ask the House to recollect the debate that took place on the Civil Aviation Bill on 16 January 1978, when the levy was first introduced. The then spokesman for the then Conservative Opposition was the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. In those days, he was an avid supporter of the setting up of the aviation security fund. During the debate, he said:
Many people argue that it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens and therefore the cost of providing that protection"—
that is, security at airports—
should fall on the general body of taxpayers. It is argued that hijackers are seeking to pressure not individual airlines or airports but Governments, and therefore Governments should assume responsibility for meeting the cost of protection.
He then said:
It is our considered view"—
that is, the Conservative party's considered view, as it was the Labour Government's view at that time—
that there are even stronger arguments in favour of transferring the cost—some £19 million"—
that says much about inflation over the past decade, as well as security—

from the taxpayers generally to those who benefit from the service provided, namely, those who travel by air. Such a proposal recognises something that many Labour Members are often reluctant to recognise—there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, has changed his mind twice. He is against the provision of an aviation security levy and he is a living, walking and talking exponent of the free lunch if ever I saw one in this place. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that debate in a way that I hope will still appeal to some of his hon. Friends who have listened to today's debate:
Why should the vast majority, who never set foot aboard an aeroplane, contribute to the cost which arises directly and identifiably from those who do? Why should pensioners, who have never travelled by plane in their lives and who never will, pay the costs of people who go on holiday to Majorca and to the Caribbean?"—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 78–80.]
The right hon. Gentleman has revised his views since then, but the Opposition have not. That is the reason——

Mr. Portillo: I am genuinely puzzled by the argument that leads the hon. Gentleman to claim that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking on the hon. Gentleman's side of the argument. My right hon. Friend said that, in future, the costs would be borne by those who travel and not by the British taxpayer. That is what we stand for. That is the present arrangement. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the fund should be recycled through Government, a proposal with which we disagree, or that it should be paid for by taxpayers generally. My right hon. Friend was explicit when he said that he thought that it would be wrong for taxpayers to bear the burden.

Mr. Snape: It is clear that the Minister has not read the report of the entire debate. We were talking about the principle of the aviation security levy in 1978. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State, was then in favour of that sort of levy at the time, and so were the then Labour Government. We have remained consistent, even if the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have not. That is why we shall be pressing the new clause to a Division. Conservative Members who share our concern about security should vote for the new clause.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of the Minister of State is at fault? He said in defence of the argument against the levy that the Government were prepared to find the money. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Snape: The illogical nature of the Minister's reply will dawn on him when he reads the Hansard report of our debate tomorrow.
I cannot find a sufficiently emotive phrase to end the debate again, and I do not think that the House would wish me to do so. The Opposition intend to pursue the matter this evening, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the principle of better security will vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 203.

Division No. 101]
[6.08 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Lamond, James


Anderson, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Terry


Armstrong, Hilary
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ashton, Joe
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Maclennan, Robert


Blair, Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Blunkett, David
McWilliam, John


Boyes, Roland
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Marek, Dr John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buchan, Norman
Maxton, John


Buckley, George J.
Michael, Alun


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Canavan, Dennis
Morgan, Rhodri


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mullin, Chris


Clelland, David
Murphy, Paul


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Coleman, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Pike, Peter L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cousins, Jim
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Cunningham, Dr John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Darling, Alistair
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Robertson, George


Doran, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, A. E. P
Rooker, Jeff


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Eadie, Alexander
Ruddock, Joan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fearn, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Short, Clare


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Flynn, Paul
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Fraser, John
Spearing, Nigel


Fyfe, Maria
Stott, Roger


George, Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Walley, Joan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N.


Gordon, Mildred
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Gould, Bryan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Graham, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Haynes, Frank
Wilson, Brian


Heffer, Eric S.
Winnick, David


Henderson, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hinchliffe, David
Worthington, Tony


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Wray, Jimmy


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)



Janner, Greville





NOES


Allason, Rupert
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry





Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jessel, Toby


Bevan, David Gilroy
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Kilfedder, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowis, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knox, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Latham, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butler, Chris
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Cash, William
McCrindle, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclean, David


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Couchman, James
Malins, Humfrey


Critchley, Julian
Maples, John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Devlin, Tim
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Miscampbell, Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Dame Janet
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forman, Nigel
Mudd, David


Franks, Cecil
Neale, Gerrard


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Gardiner, George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Grist, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hague, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Price, Sir David


Hannam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawkins, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Hayes, Jerry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayward, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sims, Roger


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Speed, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Irvine, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Irving, Sir Charles
Squire, Robin


Jack, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor






Stern, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Twinn, Dr Ian



Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

EXTENSION OF POWER TO REQUIRE PROMOTION OF SEARCHES

Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 10, at end add—
'(5) Before issuing the direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall seek the views of the manager of the aerodrome concerned.'.
The amendment deals with consultations on regional airports. It arises from the debate on the aviation security fund and, under the amendment, we have the opportunity to talk briefly about the costs for regional airports, post-Lockerbie. One of the reasons why Opposition Members plead for greater consultation with regional airport directors is that, post-Lockerbie, additional costs were incurred by regional airports for screening people who enter restricted areas there.
I understand from the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities that Birmingham airport has paid £86,000 in capital costs and will pay £514,000 for the running costs of additional safety requirements in the current year. East Midlands airport has had to pay capital costs of £405,000—which is an enormous sum for that airport—and current operating costs are £260,000. Luton airport has had to pay capital costs of £364,000 and current operating costs are £414,000 this year for new security measures.
I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be desperately anxious that regional airports should not become the weak link in any security chain. I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that security measures required at regional airports must be related to the perceived level of threat at those airports, particularly under the present financial regime.
In our view, one of the other positive arguments in favour of an aviation security fund is that it could meet the additional costs at regional airports, rather than the airports having to meet the costs.
The amendment would ensure that, before any additional measure was introduced at a regional airport, the widest possible consultation with airport managers, or directors—to give them their modern title—took place so that proposals were sensible and relevant to the individual airport.

Mr. McLoughlin: The way that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has moved the

amendment is interesting, particularly in the light of previous debates. He drew some parallels with the security fund.
I think that the case made and the evidence quoted by the hon. Gentleman prove that we are laying down strict criteria for airports to abide by. We expect them to do that, and we feel that they should try to arrange finance for it. Therefore, the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave show that the requirements are costing airports money, but they are finding the money.
I know that the whole House agrees on the importance of regional airports for our aviation policy and in providing services for people in the region. We cannot excuse those airports from the necessity of aviation security, and it would be undesirable and wrong to do so. I accept that the Government have to ensure that the security measures required——

Sir Dudley Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, but very briefly.

Sir D. Smith: Further to what the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that, although we are talking about regional airports, many of them are becoming more international, for example, at Birmingham airport the range of flights is expanding all the time?

Mr. McLoughlin: Most hon. Members accept the benefits that regional airports can bring to the regions and to the people who live in them. I take my hon. Friend's point.
The security fund was dealt with adequately and properly in the previous debate, in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Government must ensure that the security measures that it requires are both practical and necessary. That is why the Department has been discussing draft directions with those whom we consider it desirable to consult. Such consultations enable the Department to understand the practical difficulties that the industry faces when implementing new security measures, and it also allows the industry to understand why measures are necessary to meet security problems. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to issue directions rather than trying to say what should happen at an individual airport by bringing in a statute law. By their very nature, directions can change to allow for the practical details at individual airports.
The amendment would handicap rather than enhance procedures. It requires the Secretary of State only to seek advice, and there is no requirement to take those views into account, but, what is more important, there is no exemption from statutory consultation when the direction has been issued as a matter of urgency, and that would certainly worry us.
Statutory consultations, as envisaged in the amendment, could result in the Department having to contact as many as 50 aerodrome managers before any directions under the proposed section 13A could be made. It would be unlikely to add anything to the present system of informal consultation. The amendment would require aerodrome managers, who are not so directed under clause 2, to give their views about directions which would require others to have searches carried out. That seems to us to be misconceived, because it does not require the Secretary of


State to seek the views of those directly affected, and we have no intention of imposing unnecessary or unworkable security requirements on the industry.
Therefore, I assure the House that, except in cases of extreme emergency, the Department will continue to ensure that there is a dialogue between it and the industry about the long-term objectives and developments on aviation security, and about the details of proposed directions. The Department will, of course, take into account the views of the industry, while at the same time trying to persuade it that the proposed measures are necessary, feasible and reasonable. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Snape: That was a disappointing reply. The Minister has said that consultation takes place between the Department and regional airports; we are merely seeking to formalise that arrangement by asking the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the management at the aeorodrome concerned. Surely that is not too much to ask. I remind the Minister that the Government have forced the establishment of local authority airports as arm's-length companies; should not they acknowledge the financial implications of their security directives, and seek the veiws of managers before introducing them?
I am also disappointed by the Minister's failure to concede that the security measures required at regional airports are expensive, and that they should be related to a perceived threat. In Committee, he said that the perceived threat was greater in some airports than in others. In the absence of a national security levy, many airports are identifying a separate security element in their landing charges, but that does not overcome the fact that the cost of security measures at individual airports is not related to passenger throughput.
It is a pity that the Minister does not agree that airport managers' views should be sought before directions are introduced, but I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 21, line 31, leave out from 'charterer' to 'which' in line 33 and insert
'manager or master of—

(i) a British ship, or
(ii) any other ship'.

No. 2, in page 23, line 15, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.

No. 3, in page 23, line 28, leave out from 'charterer' to 'requiring' in line 29 and insert
'manager or master of—

(a) a British ship, or
(b) any other ship which is in a harbour area'.

No. 4, in page 35, line 42, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.

No. 5, in page 35, line 47, leave out from beginning to 'in' and insert
'and the authorised person certifies'.

No. 6, in page 36, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'deliver' and insert
'Where the authorised person does not himself detain the ship, he shall deliver the certificate to the officer detaining the ship.
(2A) On detaining the ship, the authorised person or other officer shall'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Clause 36

INSPECTION OF SHIPS AND HARBOUR AREAS

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 36, line 35, at end insert—
(2A) An authorised person may require the owner, charterer, manager or master of a ship, the harbour authority or occupier, to provide him with such information as shall enable the authorised person to assess whether any special conditions should be included in a direction issued under this Act.'.
Clause 36 gives the Secretary of State powers of inspection to enable him to decide whether to make a direction under clauses 21 to 24, or to ascertain whether any direction or enforcement notice has been complied with. In carrying out inspections under clause 36, the authorised person will clearly need to have in mind the powers set out in those clauses—powers to search people and property, to detain ships if necessary and to carry out modifications or alterations in harbours or on ships. No provision exists, however, to take account of the terms and conditions of work for people who will be on the receiving end of those security measures.
Let us suppose that an inspector is concerned about security on a ship, and that it is clear to him that the person or persons responsible for security is, or are, suffering from gross fatigue. Is it not more than probable that he will consider that crew members—and the master himself—are unlikely to be vigilant about security if they are suffering from fatigue?
In our view, good security depends on people being viligant, alert and able to make quick and accurate decisions. Our amendment seeks to give the inspector power to require information, so that he can assess whether special conditions should be included in any direction that he is to issue. He should, for example, be able to ask how long people have been on duty: that could apply not only to personnel working on the ship, but to security guards at harbours. He should also be able to take into account the fitness of the people involved in ensuring that security provisions are as effective as possible.
In Committee, we discussed private security services at some length. We identified many deficiencies in their organisation, and in the personnel that they sought to recruit; we also referred to a report by the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers— NUMAST—about fatigue on ships. The report states:
Fatigue can be deadly. Its effects and dangers are well-known and acknowledged in many transport industries by controls on employees' hours—yet there are no effective limits on the hours worked by seafarers.
Ships … carry a range of cargoes, some capable of causing massive environmental damage. Ferries and cruise ships carry passengers, specialist ships service North Sea oil and gas installations. In all these sectors, the shipping industry has clear responsibilities to provide safe services"—
and, of course, to have regard to security.
NUMAST has extensively researched the problems posed by fatigue at sea. Consultations with members have produced evidence of excessive working hours throughout the shipping industry. Evidence of breakdowns in personal performance as a result of excessive hours has also been given to NUMAST.
Increasing commercial pressures—including reduced crew levels, greater reliance upon new technology and faster turnround times in ports—are exacerbating the problem faced by our members"—
that is, members of crews and masters of ships.
Changes in relationship between shipowner, managing company and charterers can distance shipowners from


masters and officers. Demands of oil and gas operators in the North Sea override seamanlike judgement on safety factors, including hours worked.
For all those reasons, we thought it necessary to table amendment No. 12 to enable all the relevant factors to be taken into account when inspections are being conducted. There is ample evidence that in the shipping industry—which places no limits on the number of hours that can be worked—people are working excessive hours, with the result that their ability to cope with difficult circumstances is affected dramatically. That must have a major impact on their ability to handle security matters.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has already given notice of a related question that I wish to ask the Minister. Is he aware of an incident that occurred at the end of last year on a P and O ferry using Dover harbour? A report has reached us recently of a bomb being found on board such a ship. My hon. Friend has written to the Minister and we shall expect a reply in due course, but I should like to know now whether he knows of such an incident.
If inspectors are given the necessary information, and consider that it has a bearing on the implementation of the Bill, we believe that they should have the power to make special conditions to rectify what we consider to be a glaring omission in maritime law—the lack of regulation of working hours.

Mr. McLoughlin: Let me deal first with the hon. Lady's question about the report of a device being found on a ferry. I have not yet received the letter from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), although I understand that it is on its way, and I shall carry out a thorough investigation when it arrives. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a report that I have not yet seen, as I have had no opportunity to check it.

Ms. Ruddock: With respect, my question was not whether the Minister had received the letter or was in a position to reply, but whether he was aware of such an incident. He does not need to have received the letter to answer the question.

Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that I made it clear that I know of no such incident.
The Government are unable to accept amendment No. 12, for two reasons. First, it is always for the Secretary of State to decide which requirements should be included in any direction. It would be wholly inappropriate for an authorised person to have such a power, especially as the amendment provides that that should happen after the Secretary of State has made his initial direction. Secondly, under clause 19(1), the Secretary of State already has wide-ranging powers to require information, these being
in connection with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his functions under this Part of this Act.
We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 41

SEA CARGO AGENTS

Amendment made No. 15, in page 40, line 9, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Clause 43

ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE AS TO NOTICES AND DIRECTIONS UNDER PART III

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 41, line 20, leave out 'or managers' and insert 'managers or masters'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Clause 49

OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 47, line 35, after 'this Act' insert
'(including any provision of Part III as applied by regulations made under section 41 of this Act) or under regulations made under section 42 of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Portillo: These are technical amendments. They extend the scope of clause 49 and of section 37 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in respect of regulations relating to air and sea cargo agents and regulations requiring the reporting of aviation and maritime security occurrences. If an offence under any of these regulations is committed by a body corporate, and with the connivance of, or because of the neglect of, a director or other similar senior officer of the company, that person will also be guilty of the offence.

Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPENSATION

1. This Schedule applies to compensation under section (Compensation in respect of certain measures taken under Part III) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as "the principal section").

2. No compensation to which this Schedule applies shall be payable unless the person to whom it is payable in accordance with the principal section (or in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 5 below) serves on the person by whom the measures in question were taken a notice in writing claiming compensation under that section, and that notice is served before the end of the period of two years from the completion of the measures.

3. In relation to any measures taken by any person on land outside a harbour area, any reference in the principal section to a direction or enforcement notice, or to compliance with a direction or enforcement notice, is to be construed as if subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act were omitted.

4. In calculating value for any of the purposes of the principal section—

(a) rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 apply with the necessary modifications, and
(b) if the interest to be valued is subject to a mortgage, it is to be treated as if it were not subject to the mortgage.

5. Regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument may make provision—

(a) requiring compensation to which this Schedule applies, in such cases as may be specified in the


regulations, to be paid to a person other than the person entitled to it in accordance with the principal section,
(b) as to the application of any compensation to which this Schedule applies, or any part of it, in cases where the right to claim compensation is exercisable by reference to an interest in land which is subject to a mortgage, or to a rent-charge, or to the trusts of a settlement, or, in Scotland, to a feuduty or ground annual or to the purposes of a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations, or
(c) as to any assumptions to be made, or matters to be taken into or left out of account, for the purpose of assessing any compensation to which this Schedule applies.

6. A statutory instrument containing regulations made under paragraph 5 above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

7. Any dispute arising under the principal section or under this Schedule, whether as to the right to any compensation or as to the amount of any compensation or otherwise, shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.

8. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland—

(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed as a reference to section 12 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and
(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

9. In the application of this Schedule to Northern Ireland—

(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed, notwithstanding paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (which confines the operation of that Order to matters within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland), as a reference to Article 6(1) of that Order, and
(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

10. In this Schedule "mortgage" includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and any heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE AVIATION SECURITY ACT I982

Amendment made:  No. 9, in page 56, line 11, at end insert—
'17A. In section 37 of that Act (offences by bodies corporate) for "or under regulations made under section 33" there is substituted "(including any provision of Part II as applied by regulations made under section 21 F of this Act) or under regulations made under section 21G.".'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A number of hon. Members wish to speak on Third Reading, so my speech will be brief. The Bill has received general support throughout its stages. We had an interesting Second Reading debate on a number of matters relating to aviation and maritime security. However, there

were no significant differences of opinion about the Bill's proposals. Harmony continued throughout the Committee proceedings.
Today, we have had our most serious disagreements. The positions adopted by the Government and the Opposition have been typical. Our response, predictably, has been that we should minimise the role of Government where it is unnecessary to extend it. The Opposition's response, predictably, has been that the establishment of a central fund to recycle money could add to security. I did not expect the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to agree with me, but I am pleased that it was only a rare moment of disagreement between the two sides.
Outside the House, the Bill's proposals have been widely welcomed, certainly by the aviation industry and the police. However, they have been given a less warm welcome by the maritime industry, which believes that the existing voluntary arrangements are working satisfactorily. I can reassure the maritime industry that the legislation will ensure that security measures are applied even-handedly to foreign as well as to British ships. The Government believe that voluntary action is no longer adequate and that standards should be set and enforced throughout the industry. I assure the House that the legal sanctions will probably be used infrequently. However, it is important that reserve powers are available to be used if needed.
I believe that we have made important progress towards establishing what I hope will become an Act of Parliament which will enable us to tighten up our defences against terrorism in the aviation and maritime industries. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I made it clear from the outset in Committee that I support all moves to strengthen security arrangements at our airports and seaports. I was concerned about the extent of the powers contained in the Bill, as first printed, but I am pleased to say that many of my fears were allayed in Committee. The Minister knows that I have always been concerned about the strange anomaly that, to protect the freedom of our people—in this case, freedom of movement—we are giving the Government and other designated people the very powers that, in different circumstances, could be used to take freedom away.
Although we have uppermost in our minds the fact that we are endeavouring to defeat terrorism, the extensive powers of searches of persons and property—which are to be authorised by the owners and operators of our aerodromes, ports and the ships and aircraft that use our ports and by certain other categories of person under directives from the Secretary of State—are still very wide.
As drafted, the Bill makes it clear that most of the searches will be carried out by private security personnel. In the case of our harbours, the searches are likely to be conducted by hand. There is still no code of conduct or set of standards to cover such searches; nor is there any mechanism to monitor the process or to set up a complaints procedure. I mentioned that point in Committee on two separate occasions. I still consider such a mechanism to be essential. I am still worried about the extensive nature of this power of search, which can reach land, property and personnel far removed from any airport or harbour.
In Committee, I tried to amend the clause relating to the use of firearms. I am mindful that, in reply, the Minister said:
I advise the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that his amendment No. 99 has considerable attraction. I intend to reconsider the phraseology of this part of the Bill, although I am not sure that what he proposes is strictly necessary. it is clear that the mechanism for securing searches by armed constables would operate when a person receiving a direction got in touch with the chief constable of a local police force, who would ensure that arms were carried by the policemen. That would happen in any case, but there maybe advantage in reviewing the wording.
A specific fault in the hon. Gentleman's wording is that it would require constables to be authorised to carry firearms, but that is not enough. We want to ensure that they actually carry them if that has been specified in the direction. For that reason, I shall not accept his wording. However, I should like to review it to see whether we can provide something better."—Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 February 1990; c. 139.]
I see no evidence of that reconsideration, or of a review or of the provison of something better. Perhaps the Minister could say why.
As I have already stated, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, I feel that this is a good Bill. I therefore support it, as it will be an effective vehicle to combat terrorism.

Mr. Wilshire: I was pleased to welcome the Bill when it was given its Second Reading. Both in Committee and on Report, it has been further strengthened by the changes that have been made. However, I do not believe that the process should stop here. My hon. Friends the Ministers for Public Transport and for Aviation and Shipping are well aware that several matters still need to be considered. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that it will be possible to introduce further changes.
The Bill improves security both at airports and at seaports. It clarifies responsibilities that have never been clarified before. The Secretary of State's role is defined. The Bill provides him with new powers to carry out his responsibilities. It ensures that everyone with access to airside at airports and with access to ships is responsible for public safety.
The Bill also improves the checking and monitoring of security. The powers of the inspectorate at airports are to be strengthened. The Bill will provide it with greater powers to carry out checks. However, the suggestion that, because there will be more inspectors, there will, for the first time, be random tests of the system is far from the truth. All sorts of people have been trying to test the system for a long time, but more inspectors will be a welcome addition. One of the most important improvements made in Committee was the insertion of the requirement that all future lapses in security must be reported.
The Bill provides effective sanctions that will enable enforcement to take place properly. It activates the Montreal protocol and creates new offences; the entire Committee agreed that that was about time too.
The Bill closes some loopholes that have existed for some time. In future, businesses that operate at an airport but also have premises away from the airport will find that security will catch up with them wherever they may be operating. That is not before time.
In Committee, it was also made clear that the cargo procedures, particularly at airports, would be tightened up. I welcome that, as does the entire aviation industry, but there is still some way to go; more thought is necessary before we can be absolutely certain that we have done everything possible to improve our existing cargo systems. Although the Bill contains all those worthwhile provisions, we have to remember that no Bill will ever be a cure-all for security, as 100 per cent. security is impossible. However many Bills go through the House, the personal responsibility of every passenger and employee and the eternal vigilance of all concerned are the only ways to maximise security, even when the Bill is enacted.
When we pass the Bill, we need to avoid three traps. First, we must not pretend to the public that we can achieve a level of security that cannot be attained, because we do not have the technology. Secondly, we must beware of bringing the system to a halt by demanding too many checks on huge numbers of people. Thirdly, as I said on Second Reading, we must avoid always looking backwards to try to close loopholes after a terrorist has found them. Having said that, I wish the Bill well. I believe that it is a practical response to a deeply worrying problem for the public.

Mr. Snape: Earlier in our deliberations, the Minister of State said that, at every stage of the Bill, the debate has been fairly harmonious and good-tempered. We endorse those sentiments. Right from the outset, the Opposition have been in a somewhat unusual position. Normally, we oppose Government legislation, but on this occasion we felt that there was much to be said in favour of the Bill, although we were unhappy with some aspects of it and felt that some loopholes should be closed. We have not been successful in closing those loopholes, but at each stage we were grateful to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for listening to the arguments, and for responding positively when they were able to do so and courteously when they were not. That is not always the case on such legislation.
From the outset, the Opposition believed and insisted that there should be a time schedule within which all aircraft baggage for transfer and in hold, as well as that carried by passengers, should be properly screened. We have not yet reached that laudable objective, although we have secured a pledge from the Minister of State that the Government will work towards it and, hopefully, it will be achieved sooner rather than later.
We remain of the view that the major obstacle to achieving that desirable goal is money. Notwithstanding the views that have been expressed this evening, we firmly believe that an aviation security fund will be necessary to fund security adequately at Britain's airports.
In Committee, we introduced the concept that a threat to damage or interfere with the safe passage of an airliner should be an offence. That view was shared by many Members on both sides of the Committee. Perhaps the Government's attitude will change. The perceived threat to airlines and airliners is often worrying to passengers. All too often, those who make such threats are aware that some people feel terrified, or at least uncomfortable, when they board an aircraft. The examples that we discussed in


Committee showed that the threats themselves caused enormous concern to passengers and led to heavy delays and extra expense for the airlines involved.
Most of the maritime clauses of the Bill have been dealt with more than adequately by my hon. Friends the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). We remain concerned and unhappy about the amount of private policing that takes place and will continue to take place around our docks and harbours.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is not present, although I am sure there are good reasons for his absence. Some of the amendments that he tabled in Committee left us in no doubt about the concern of the Police Federation that so many policing duties are bring carried out by private security firms. In Committee, the Opposition attempted to do something about the principle of non-police officers doing work that should be carried out by the police.
We attempted to persuade the Minister to accept amendments that would have laid down minimum standards of pay and working conditions within the private security industry before those private security firms were employed at docks, harbours or airports. As we were unsuccessful in our attempts to persuade the Government that such amendments were necessary, we hope that their refusal to accede to those eminently reasonable demands will not rebound on them in the form of further breaches of security particularly at our docks and harbours in future.
We believe that the Bill is basically good. All right hon. and hon. Members are anxious that security at our airports, harbours and docks is the best that money can buy, regardless of where that money comes from. The fact that there was so much harmony in Committee illustrates the depth of feeling and concern, which crosses party lines. We do not whole-heartedly support every clause. We tried to close one or two gaps in the Bill, and the fact that we were unable to do so causes us concern. The parts of the Bill that must be strengthened will be considered in another place, so I conclude by expressing the Opposition's thanks to the Minister for Public Transport and the Under-Secretary for a courteous and informative debate, and I hope that they would reciprocate those sentiments.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Midland Metro Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am aware that there have been objections to the private Bill procedure. The word "Parliament" derives from the French "parler"—to talk. Supporters of the Bill do not object to the Bill being debated, but moving its Second Reading is the only way it can be heard. We must therefore follow that procedure. The House may consider a better procedure in the future, and that might commend itself, but at present this is the only procedure available.
One or two hon. Members wish to oppose the Bill, and one of the happy outcomes of this debate is that they will be able to do so. I hope that they will bear in mind—I shall refer to this in detail later—the referendum carried out by the promoters, showing a majority in favour of the Bill among those who will be affected by it. Some 62 per cent. of those polled were in favour, 15 per cent. opposed it and 22 per cent. were uncertain.
The Bill follows a long tradition that was initiated by Bills in the 18th century to construct canals and by Bills in the last century to construct railways. The same routine was used when the Birmingham-London railway was constructed in 1832. The canal that runs through my constituency was subject to the same procedure.
Transportation patterns have changed enormously in the past few decades. When I served on the transport committee in Birmingham, it was said that the black country was no more than a bicycle ride away from a chap's place of work or home. That was the limit of his transport horizons. I remember being told by the then general manager that there was no connection between the black country and Birmingham, and that no one wished to travel on such a route. How different transport has become. We now have lines between Wolverhampton, the black country and Birmingham which were established by the passing of the first Act to build a line connecting Wolverhampton to Birmingham.
All the surrounding areas have changed. The reference in "Jerusalem" to the dark satanic mills of industry no longer applies. They are now much more pleasant to work in and more pleasant environmentally. The back-to-back houses of the early industrial revolution have changed and are now pleasant villas in which to live. Their occupants want an alternative transport system. We have seen green changes, environmental facelifting and cosmetic work throughout the area. One of the advantages of the Bill is that, wherever the line runs, it will continue that trail of environmentally acceptable measures.
Birmingham and many black country towns used to have tramways. There was a horse trough in the centre of Moseley, from which horses would drink before pulling trams on the last part of their journey up St. Mary's hill. Trams were abolished in the 1950s and in my office I have a picture of the last tram.
I believe that the Midland metro will provide a better form of transport than the trams. I travelled down Bristol road to school on a tram. It was a safe method of transport, and the only method that did not provide one with an excuse for being late. The trams were open-ended, and many a friendly cap used to exit from either end of them.
Constraints on transport in urban areas have led to demands for an alternative form of transport. In previous decades, attempts were made to legislate against the car. They have not been successful, and car usage has increased enormously. It was my lot as second chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to draw up the west midlands transport plan and to include a paragraph that we should bring back an electric light railway to supplement existing transport systems. We had introduced the cross-city railway line in Tyseley, and the 80 marshalling places for it, on a shoestring of about £8 million, compared with the £300 million that Newcastle was lucky to obtain for its heavy rail system. We did not begrudge Newcastle that excellent system, which we inspected many times, but we had to manage on a shoestring, and in only the past few weeks has the Secretary of State for Transport given permission for the electrification of that cross-city line, which we hope will be completed within two years. That is bad enough. The lead-in time was long, and we hope that the Bill will give us a chance to make up some of the lost time and lost line.
Transport debates have always dealt with the differences between highways and railways, but there has been no need for that. Under the integrated transport system initiated following the Midland Metro Act 1989, buses and cars were provided with free car parks, enabling their passengers to use the trains. Usage on one line increased by 1,500 per cent.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that probably the only justification for ever providing free car parking is as part of an integrated transport system? Does he agree that free parking provided by employers and others should be a taxable perk to encourage people to use transit systems?

Mr. Bevan: I note that point. I would not like to comment on tax-free perks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the necessity for free parking. I have always resisted any attempt to levy a charge in the midlands.
Five new stations have been built in Birmingham this century. Many more have been refurbished; dozens of free car parks have been provided; and the lines have been upgraded to take heavy rolling stock. Much more must be done. The Bill authorises the construction of the second and third stages of the network. Its capital costs will be substantial—about £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route and £139 million for the black country route. I hope that the stock will be similar to that operating in Grenoble, which is the watershed in terms of light railways. The system is ecologically elegant, being whisper-quiet and attractive. I hope that it will be made in Britain, perhaps even in Birmingham.
Progress on a previous Bill stopped because the proposal would have destroyed far too much property and interfered with the rights of citizens and was for the wrong place at the wrong time. The task was again taken up by the West Midlands passenger transport executive, now called Centro. It has aimed to introduce a rapid rail system in the best possible way, wherever possible using disused railway lines or using designated or on-street tramways. Although there have been a few objections, the project has cross-party support on all seven metropolitan district

councils—Birmingham city council and the metropolitan borough councils of Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.
The west midlands metro system will play an important part in reversing the declining use of public transport. It will make a major contribution in regenerating derelict or economically depressed areas and will bring major benefits in improving the environment. The system is a constant factor of success elsewhere, being well-used and patronised throughout the world. On my visits as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I have been impressed by rapid rail transit systems in the United States, Canada and throughout Europe, where towns vie with one another to introduce their own metropolitan transit system. I am determined that our area will not be behind. In making this move, we will initiate one of the most modern systems in the world.
Extensive consultation has been carried out. The Bill's sponsors respectfully ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading. The procedure that we are following differs slightly from the normal procedure for a public Bill. Granting a Second Reading will merely allow the Bill to proceed to Committee where it will be fully examined.
The Bill's aims are to relieve traffic congestion, bring about economic regeneration, ensure increased use of the public transport network and, attendant upon the work, bring about environmental improvements. The first stage provides for 20 km of line linking Birmingham Snow Hill, a station that has recently been rebuilt, to Wolverhampton, at a cost of £60 million. The Bill providing for that work received the Royal Assent in November 1989, without objection.
The light transit system provided for by this legislation will consist of a modern lightweight tram which has low floor boarding and runs on a standard gauge track. It will be fume-free, being powered by overhead electricity. It will be able to operate on either designated track or on shared road. It will be similar to the Grenoble design, of which I have full details, although I shall merely say that it will have a two-unit capacity providing room for 250 people, 75 seated and the rest standing.
The system's benefits are that it will relieve traffic congestion and increase mobility because of the low floor, it is safe, environmentally friendly, fume-free and reliable and it compares favourably with other modes of transport. For my money, it is the finest system that I have seen. It will provide direct access to towns and shopping centres. Its advantages over roads are that it is safer, has lower costs and has less environmental impact. Recent transport studies do not propose roads as a solution to transport needs in urban areas. The aim of the state-of-the-art systems is to get the right mix between roads and rail, including light railways and other forms of transport.
This system has much lower costs than heavy rail and has less environmental impact. It is more flexible, being capable of negotiating tighter bends and steeper gradients. It can share the roads with other traffic and it gives greater penetration into city areas. Compares with buses, it is more reliable, cleaner and fume-free, has greater capacity, is faster and more modern and has an upmarket image. Compared with the requirements of busways and bus priorities, it uses less space, is easier to control, can share road space and is cheaper to operate. Compared with trolley buses, it is faster and more efficient. Many other comparisons could be made.
The Bill provides for a transport route from Birmingham Five Ways, one of the five stations built this century. It will go underground through the city centre to the Birmingham Heartlands development area, a 2,000-acre redevelopment, to Bromford, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Arlington business park and the national exhibition centre, which is already a world beater, making Birmingham and the midlands one of the most important strategic areas in the world——

. Iain Mills: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevan: The route runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend who has applauded its existence. I am sure that he will applaud the necessary transport survey. The route will take in Birmingham international railway station and Birmingham international airport. The length will be 26 km, and there will be 34 stops. Twenty-four vehicles will be required, the frequency will be every five minutes, and the cost will be £240 million.
Then the line will go underground—under the city centre. Underground stations will serve the new international convention centre, the town hall, New street and Corporation street. The line will surface at Aston university and the general hospital—if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I, together with our colleagues, are able to have that preserved in the health plan. The underground section will cost £100 million.
From Wolverhampton, line 3 will go to Dudley town centre, via Wednesfield, Walsall, Darlaston and Wednesbury. It will cross line 1 at the Sandwell 2000 development. It will serve Tipton, too. Indeed, it will link all those towns in the black country whose citizens used to want to cover small distances. The length will be 26 km, there will be 32 stops and 11 vehicles, frequency will be every 10 minutes, and the cost will be £139 million.
Major feasibility studies were undertaken to choose the route. These were partly funded by the EEC. Suffice it to say that, in the end, the district councils selected the routes on the basis of minimum effect on residential property. In the case of line 1, no residential property whatsoever will be taken out. In the case of line 2, only some residential property in a redevelopment area will be affected.
Potential passenger use, cost, environmental effects and development proposals, as well as practicability of construction, were borne in mind. Each passenger stop will be 60 m long—sufficient to accommodate two units. Stops will be located about every 600 to 800 m, as in the case of bus stops. Kerb height will be twice the average, so that in most places the step will be precisely level. There will be a slightly inclined ramp to give pushchairs and wheelchairs access. Incidentally, a disabled passenger will be able to press a button on the tram, at the point of exit, to bring out a pneumatic step to bridge the two-inch gap between the vehicle and the kerb. Thus there will be completely safe and smooth exit for disabled people.
No decisions about stops have yet been made. Ultimately that will be a matter for the council, after consultation with local residents. Consultation has followed a very intense pattern. Since the launch in 1987, many videos have been shown and a dedicated exhibition bus has toured round. In 1989, 300 six-minute videos were sent to residents' associations, community groups and local political parties; 64,000 leaflets were distributed; 95 presentations were given to business groups, chambers of

commerce, rotary clubs, breakfast clubs, local groups and CBI groups; 17 exhibitions were mounted at conferences and transport events; and the exhibition bus appeared on 72 days at 40 venues.
Regarding the Bill, 115,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the line of route immediately after the local council announced the proposed route. Ten different leaflets were produced. PTE or Centro officers attended 40 consultation venues or meetings.
In the case of line 2, in Birmingham 14,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the proposed route—4,000 covering the city centre section and 10,000 for the area outside the city centre to the Solihull boundary; 13 consultation venues were organised by Centro and council officers, and were attended by 1,400 members of the public; an exhibition lasting three and a half weeks was arranged at Bromford neighbourhood office; public meetings were organised and publicised by Centro and Birmingham city council, and 239 people attended; and there were 26 meetings with businesses and business groups.
In Solihull, 25,000 leaflets were distributed throughout northern Solihull; two further leaflets—4,500 copies of one, and 14,000 of the other—were distributed to advise people of further consultation venues.

Mr. Rooker: I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to the end of his list, and I think he has now done so.

Mr. Bevan: I have not come to the end of it.

Mr. Rooker: In that case, I shall put my question when he has finished.

Mr. Bevan: I come now to line 3. In Walsall, 36,000 leaflets—three versions covering sections of the route—were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed route; and 11 consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers.
In Wolverhampton, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route; personal letters were sent to occupiers of 130 properties directly affected by the route; three consultation venues were organised, with Centro and council officers in attendance, and these were attended by 200 people; and an exhibition was held at New Cross hospital.
In Sandwell, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route; three consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers, and these attracted 400 people.
In Dudley, personal letters, with Sandwell leaflets, were sent to the occupiers of 32 homes along Birmingham New road; and 600 people visited the exhibition bus in Dudley market place.

Mr. Rooker: I am sorry for having interrupted the hon. Gentleman before he completed his list. That list of consultations in respect of the three routes is very impressive, although I have not taken it all in. In any case, my constituency is not affected. Despite this massive public relations operation, the real test is whether people were listened to. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many changes were made in the proposed route as a result of all these consultations?

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is necessary that the routes be promulgated along with the private Bill. Thus, by the time the Bill is published, the route is almost fixed. However, by that time all those who have a legitimate interest in the route, and who have expressed that interest, will have had their views taken into consideration. Of course, account will have been taken of locus standi. In a case like this, anyone voicing an objection must say who he is, what his interest is, and how he is affected. That cannot be altered. I understand that, in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), some changes were made in the original proposed route. It would appear that the requirements have changed from time to time. I think that certain minor modifications have been made.

Mr. Terry Davis: I had no intention of intervening in the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I have been following with great interest, but I assure him that no changes were made as a result of the leaflets or of meetings in my constituency. If he thinks that some changes were made, perhaps he will tell the House what they were.

Mr. Bevan: I understood that there had been minor changes from the centre of the spine area originally proposed by the city council to the periphery—changes that the hon. Gentleman wanted. Certainly the route has now been arranged along the boundary of Collector road.

Mr. Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevan: I shall give way once more, but then I must get on.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is talking about my constituency. I have to tell him that he is confusing the Bromford estate with Chelmsley Wood. Collector road is in Chelmsley Wood, not in the Bromford estate, which is in my constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House, but his description of the alleged changes is misleading.

Mr. Bevan: I shall listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech and perhaps return to the matter.
Let us consider the concerns expressed at the many meetings and consultation sessions. One of them was noise. The vehicles are much quieter than the 1940s tram or even the Blackpool trams, and the higher frequency will mean that they will be less intrusive. The tracks will be embedded in rubber compound and ballasted when feasible, so there will be virtually no noise, and noise insulation grant will be payable under a scheme similar to that in operation for highways.
Safety has been concentrated upon, and the tram will be a much safer form of conveyance per passenger mile than the car. There will be far fewer accidents involving pedestrians. The vehicle runs on rails and so will be more controlled than a car or bus. The driver does not have to steer and has a high level of training, and the system has been approved by the railway inspectorate under the strictest criteria.
Concern was also expressed about property values and compensation. In 1989, Centro introduced a scheme to purchase properties directly affected by the proposals whose owners wished to sell. Moreover, evidence shows that property values increase faster when new public transport infrastructure is built. In Grenoble, only about

50 per cent. of the people had been in favour of the system before it was initiated, but after it had been running for about a year, no fewer than 93·7 per cent. expressed themselves completely in favour.
A factor that is important to all of us here is funding. We shall seek funding from the private sector—through operating rights, stop locations and development gain. We shall seek it from the EEC regional development fund, on the basis of job creation, economic regeneration and environmental gain. I understand that about 30 per cent. of the funding may be available from the EEC. We shall seek funding from the United Kingdom Government, on the grounds of non-user benefits such as the relief of traffic congestion, environmental improvements and a reduction in accidents, as well as by the appropriate section 56 applications.
What will the costs be? Line 1 will cost £60 million for 20 km. The lines covered by the Bill—lines 2 and 3—will cost £224 million for 26 km and £139 million for 26 km respectively, and the vehicles will cost £30 million.
How do those costs compare with road costs? The heartlands spine road, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I seek to bring into existence and for which we, with some other hon. Members, have obtained approval, will cost £85 million and cover 4·1 km—a cost of £20·66 million per km—and its maximum passenger capacity will be 14,500. Line 3 of the metro will cost £139 million, or about twice as much as the heartlands spine road, but it will cover 26 km, which is more than six times the road's length. The cost per km will be £5·36 million—about a quarter of the cost of the road, and the passenger capacity will be about 30,000—twice the capacity of the spine road.
Support for the project has been pretty constant, and the groups that have given their support range from Aston Villa football club—despite yesterday's loss—and the Automobile Association, through a myriad of bodies to the Urban Wildlife Group and the west midlands branch of the CBI. There has been cross-party support from all the district councils and from most of the west midlands Members of Parliament—support which I hope will be reflected again this evening. As I explained earlier, there is widespread public support and even the groups that oppose the project because of the routes claim to support the concept and to want the metro to proceed.
What happened in Grenoble? Before the tram was built the people were 53 to 47 in favour of its going ahead. Two years after it had opened, they were 93 to 7 in favour.
This is a brilliant opportunity to take a gigantic transportation step forward to the benefit of citizens throughout the west midlands and of all the towns that are clamouring for the metro. We understand the necessity to debate and question, but we must not deny people their right to move freely on such a transport system. The Bill presents an opportunity which, if not grasped now, may be denied to us for ever. I am certain that there are no transportation luddites or even troglodytes among us, and I hope that all hon. Members will vote to give the Bill its Second Reading.

Mr. Bruce George: I speak not as a troglodyte or as a luddite. Words of abuse may have been heaped upon me, but I have never been called either of those. Nor am I a Trappist.
One of the great problems that hon. Members face in dealing with constituency matters is how to make a judgment based on representations from individual constituents or groups of constituents, however legitimately expressed on the one hand, and representations from a wider group—which may or may not be formally made—on the other. One's judgment must be based partly on sectarian interests—I do not use the word "sectarian" in any way abusively—and partly on broader regional and national interests. Sometimes hon. Members may be cowed into silence—if not submission—on an issue that directly affects a group of their constituents, but we must try to take a broader approach.
Although a number of my constituents—not many—have expressed their opposition to the Bill, I am secure in the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of the metro being constructed through my constituency and adjacent constituencies. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, the creation of the network will bring immense advantage to my constituents, to the town of Walsall, to the black country and to the region. As Members of Parliament, we have an obligation to represent not just specific interests but wider town and regional interests.
In my view, there is an overwhelming case for the House to endorse the Bill and to hope that it will wend its way through Committee and through a consultation process that will be a continuation of the consultations to date. I hope that eventually—not before time, as this saga has been unfolding since the early 1980s—in the mid to late 1990s, we shall see the network in operation. We must work towards that end and recognise what has already been achieved.
As far as I am aware, the authorities were not legally obliged to begin the consultation process until the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament. What was done in my area, and, I presume, in others, was therefore discretionary. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) narrated a long tale of consultation, which I could replicate with the greatest of ease. A large number of meetings and metro surgeries were held; a hot line was established; letters were written; tens of thousands of leaflets were issued, including to all those living within a kilometre of the proposed route.
Walsall council cannot be criticised for failing to consult. Nor can the council or the passenger transport authority be accused of not acting on a number of suggestions. A year ago, residents in Victoria road, Darlaston, heard that the line was to go past their houses. They told me that that proposal was illogical. I was told that the line would go down the road and that there would be enormous traffic problems because the road was too narrow. They said that, just 20 yd from the proposed line, there was an old railway cutting, and asked whether it would make more sense to put the line in the old cutting. However, the problem was that the council had spent money making that cutting into a linear pathway and it was not initially enthusiastic about ripping up something which was environmentally advantageous that it had constructed. When the case was put to Walsall council and the PTA, reason prevailed and the route was changed. It is obvious that, where a rational case could be presented, the authority has been prepared to reconsider and has changed the route.
I understand that there had been a change of route in Solihull. Perhaps there will be other changes later.
However, we face problems with such proposals. People legitimately say that they do not want the proposed line to pass their houses because it might be noisy or because fishermen carrying their lines might snag them on the overhead wires. Similarly, they argue that children might be run down or that the line would have an adverse effect on house prices. Many arguments can be made with fervour and legitimacy, and perhaps some are valid.
It is quite natural that people are reluctant to have any development near their homes. At what point do legitimate criticisms and proposed alterations to a route that might be to the public advantage turn into opposition regardless of the proposal? I have heard it argued that the metro should not be located near houses, that it should be located on some derelict land a quarter of a mile or half a mile away. That argument seems to defeat the object of the metro, which is to put a network close to where people live so that they can get on and off the line and go wherever they want within the network. If the network is located away from houses, people will not use it.
Although I have some objectors to the proposal in one part of my constituency, the majority of the objectors in Walsall are within the constituency of my hon. Friend the member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I am satisfied that the objections have been heard and a rational decision has been taken. Clearly some people will be most unhappy, but they were consulted and the local authority pursued the consultation and administrative process incumbent upon it so efficiently that, when the ombudsman, at the request of constituents, complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of maladministration and lack of consultation by Walsall council—I shall not bore the House by listing the complaints—the local ombudsman concluded:
I am satisfied that the Council considered objections to the proposed route but concluded that on balance the original route was the best option. This is a judgment within the council's discretion.
The council was exonerated of maladministration and it has nothing to feel guilty about.
I was struck by the discretionary nature of the consultation. Councillor Dick Worrall in my constituency has been tireless in consulting people who have objections. He produced a leaflet informing objectors how to petition Parliament. In some ways, it is rather bizarre to offer weapons to one's opponents. However, such was the great desire of Councillor Worrall, who is a member of the passenger transport executive, to make the opportunities for protesting well known, that the information was made available in leaflets that were distributed widely. To those who sometimes argue that the consultative process was a farce and that no genuine attempt was made to listen to the objections, I respond with some authority from experience of my area, and dismiss those criticisms.
I am sure that many hon. Members want to speak tonight, and some of them will give good reasons why the metro routes should not be laid down. However, hon. Members from the west midlands must be aware that our transport network is in deep crisis. That is obvious simply from looking at our streets and roads.
I want to be not politically partisan but descriptively correct and to argue that our highways are clogged and the situation is unlikely to improve. In fact, if car ownership increases at projected levels, in a decade or so our highways will be impassable.
I congratulate the West Midlands passenger transport executive on its imagination with this proposal. It has not pioneered such an idea, and the concept is not unique in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. However, the executive has faced the difficulties. It has devised routes and gone to an enormous amount of trouble in hiring consultants and holding meetings. The process is now moving towards a critical stage.
It is obvious to everyone why the network is necessary. It is required urgently because it will assist those who are not mobile to become mobile. I have seen statistics which show that the majority of the metro's critics in some areas are car owners. While it is important to encourage car owners to get on the new trams, some people would argue that it is more important to bring mobility to those who do not have it now.
There are also arguments in favour of the metro in terms of environmental improvements and savings in fuel. It is argued that it will bring together towns in the west midlands and the black country that are now not closely linked, especially east to west. Most importantly, the metro will help to regenerate our region.
The proposal will be costly, and we hope that money will come from central Government, local government, the European Community and private sources. The proposal is not the easy option. However, I urge hon. Members who are present in the Chamber now and others who have not yet heard the arguments to support the Bill today.
The proposal is necessary. We must bear in mind the objectors and, even if we are victorious tonight, we must be magnanimous in victory and recognise that we must as far as possible meet legitimate objections. However, those objections must not be elevated to such a level that the public interest will be damaged by routes being vetoed. We must listen to objectors, take account of what is said, and determine whether it is possible to re-route or to compensate adequately. Everything must be done to maximise support. Perhaps, in five or six years, some parts of the region will have a rapid transit system of which we can be proud, and we shall look back to this Second Reading debate and say that we supported it.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate the Government's attitude. I am aware that my speech may sound rather dispassionate compared with the two heartfelt speeches that hon. Members have already heard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for the comprehensive way in which he moved the Second Reading.
This is one of several private Bills—I need hardly tell the House that—providing for new light railways or rapid transit systems in and around our major cities. Light rail has many potential advantages—for example, where vehicles run on their own tracks, they can move more people more quickly than buses can. They can also run on-street and negotiate steeper gradients and tighter bends than conventional railways.
The Government welcome the efforts that transport planners are making to assess what light rail has to offer. Naturally, it cannot be the ideal solution in all cases, but it can bring considerable benefits, as it has done in the case

of docklands light railway. Only a few months ago, we were delighted to give the go-ahead to the Manchester MetroLink light rail project, and we have also provided some funding for the development of the south Yorkshire project planned for Sheffield.
Parliament has already negotiated for line 1 of the proposed midland metro network. I understand that the West Midlands passenger transport executive, now known as Centro, intends to apply for grant towards the cost of providing that line. When it does so, we shall look at the case on its merits and in the light of resources available. I cannot forecast the outcome of that tonight, not least because we do not yet have the submission.
Now Centro is seeking powers for two more lines towards an extensive light rail network. It hopes to reduce existing and future traffic congestion and foster the expansion of employment and development opportunities. I understand that, in doing so, it intends to take full advantage of the skills that the private sector has to offer in designing, building and operating the system. I welcome that.
In principle, the Bill is acceptable to the Government, but we have raised with the promoters a number of technical and drafting points that I hope will be resolved satisfactorily. The works proposed in the Bill also affect a listed building in the area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned about paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies the special controls that normally apply to listed buildings. That issue has been raised with the promoter, and he wishes to reserve his position for the time being.
There are 35 petitions against the Bill, and, if they are pursued, there will be the opportunity to present objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.

Mr. Rooker: It is a bit unfair to ask the Minister this question, but he is the only Minister present. Will every hon. Member from the west midlands be excluded, or will hon. Members through whose constituencies the lines will go be on the Committee? Frankly, that is what is wrong with private legislation. Hon. Members from the west midlands have experience of the area and could contribute to the Select Committee's proceedings. Membership of that Committee is important for a proper discussion of the Bill. How will exclusion be drawn? Will it be based on the whole of the west midlands region or county, or will it be based on Members through whose constituencies the lines will go?

Mr. Portillo: I was not overly flattered when the hon. Gentleman said that I was the only Minister around and suggested that I would do for the purpose. He does not want a Minister to answer his question. It is not within the gift of Ministers to determine which hon. Members will serve on Select Committees. I imagine that it must be for some Committee of the House, but it certainly is not for me. I cannot predict how a Committee might interpret its role. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is clearly on the record for the relevant authorities to consider.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Minister, my brief is to express a few words of welcome for the Bill. It is the Labour party's policy to support such developments. However, I am bound to say that the Government's attitude to some parts of the country has been somewhat worrying. The Minister mentioned the docklands light railway and Manchester. Although Opposition Members are pleased with the success of those developments, we are aware that, in the case of the docklands light railway, the Government are anxious to commit some public funds—as with the extension of the Jubilee line—to prove that their private enterprise flagship can stay afloat, albeit by pumping some additional public funds into the hull.
The Government have announced their approval of a private-public sector partnership in Manchester. Given the Minister's detailed scrutiny of such matters, it will not have escaped his attention that the lines proposed for conversion into a metro system in Manchester are existing heavy railway lines that have been used to such an extent that both lines were electrified by the London Midland and Scottish railway about 50 or 60 years ago.
Opposition Members note that, in giving the go-ahead and steering Manchester towards the conversion of those existing heavy railway lines, the Government are aware that there will be many passengers to move along that corridor. I make no complaint about that. However, if I were a season ticket holder at Altrincham or Bury, to name but two, I doubt whether I would be looking forward with any great relish to the replacement of my fast, frequent and comfortable electric service by a metro system which, in the rush hour at least, is likely to be far more crowded than the existing conventional trains that it replaces.
The Minister looks somewhat doubtful. He must not think that we are gullible enough to believe that public money is necessarily steered towards such projects because of the amount of public good that such money will provide. That is not the Government's way. They will guarantee the success of the Manchester metro and its private sector involvement in exactly the same way as they guaranteed the success of the docklands light railway—that is, by cramming as many passengers as possible into vehicles that are likely to give a less comfortable journey.
If any declaration of interest is necessary, I have a mild interest to declare. Although the Minister was careful not to commit any Government money in this case, the proposed railway line runs through my constituency. Indeed, it joins Wolverhampton with Birmingham, via West Bromwich—a fact that will no doubt please my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). We would have been grateful if, together with the Minister's good wishes, we had the promise of funds. Of course we do not have the advantage of converting a conventional railway, although the line will run along the track bed of the former Great Western railway main line and will connect with a reopened stretch of that line, if Centro's plans for conventional rail go ahead as we hope.
There is some opposition to the Bill. Like other west midlands Members, I have received representations from those who oppose the Bill. I apologise for missing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). It was not sour grapes because he made such

a fool of himself on television in the west midlands a few weeks ago; it was because I had been ensconced on this Bench since 3.30 pm.
For once, we agree on the project. The Labour party supports the Bill. Representations have been made to all hon. Members by those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said were primarily car owners. I do not know whether they are primarily car owners, but I am convinced of the relevance of some of their objections. However, to deny objectors the right to put a case before a Committee of the House is scarcely good public relations.
I am aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee, behind which Centro seeks to shield itself from criticism. It has nothing to fear from criticism. and I wish that it had not taken the action that it took.
My second criticism of the way in which the matter has been handled is that Centro occasionally appeared to be more interested in paying money to public relations firms than in speaking directly to Opposition and Conservative Members who have not only a direct interest in the future of the metro system but knowledge of parliamentary procedures which we would gladly pass on without demanding the enormous fees which no doubt were paid to public relations firms.
I object to receiving letters from a public relations firm asking me to meet members of my own political party who serve on local authorities in the west midlands. I do riot see either the point or the relevance of such letters. On numerous occasions I have sought to impress that fact on those who are responsible for paying the bills to such companies, apparently without success.

Mr. Rooker: It is worse than my hon. Friend says. During one part of the public relations exercise on the Bill, on behalf of the public relations firms, I received from its employee, a Member of Parliament representing a Surrey constituency, an invitation to talk to my passenger transport authority. When people send me letters to try to get my ear in that way, I tear them up. When residents write to me, I do what other hon. Members do and go to see them. I went to see people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) in Bromford. When a company tries to reach me via another Member of Parliament from a constituency deep in the Surrey woodlands, it seems that someone is not earning his salary.

Mr. Snape: Regrettably, what we are complaining about is that someone is earning his salary, albeit at the expense of those whom we represent. Letters from the source that my hon. Friend referred to are an extremely clumsy way, to say the least, of going about the matter.
I make no complaint about the chairman and founder of the public relations company being a prominent member of the Conservative party, but when such an organisation sends me letters, it does not endear the cause to me. I see no reason for Centro to handle the matter in that way.
I have no doubt that, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of my hon. Friends will state the objections to the Bill of people in the area. Any hon. Member has every right to raise objections on behalf of those whom he represents. In this case, the objectors are misguided in the long term. As the hon. Member for Yardley said, if the projections are right, traffic congestion


in and around the west midlands conurbation by the end of the decade is likely to mean that none of us will travel anywhere by motor car. By objecting to and perhaps delaying, if not preventing, the line, objectors might prevent themselves from moving around the conurbation and prevent other people from doing so in years to come.
I have some sympathy with those who feel that there is something to fear from noise and so on, but, having seen metro schemes in operation in other parts of the world, I believe that their fears are misplaced. I repeat that they should have been allowed at least to put those fears to the appropriate Committee of the House without being challenged.
With those twin caveats in mind—the clumsy and unnecessary opposition of petitioners and the even more clumsy and less necessary use of a fairly hostile public relations organisation—I repeat that the official Opposition support schemes such as this, and I shall vote for it tonight.

Mr. Iain Mills (Meridan): It is always difficult to make change in complex societies. One wants to make change for the better. There is no doubt in my mind that the midland metro is a change for the better in the west midlands. I hope that both Conservative and Opposition Members will remember that I represent a constituency that lies between Birmingham and Coventry. We have seen change for the better in the shape of the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international station, Birmingham international airport, Birmingham business park and many other developments. That has created a huge complex of industrial activity, which I strongly welcome and which the vast majority of my constituency have come to welcome. It is part of the most important regeneration of our area.
Centro—formerly the pasenger transport executive—has come along with what seems to be a good proposal. The principle is good. The majority of my constituents believe that the principle of better communications between Birmingham and the NEC, servicing on the way the constituencies of Opposition Members and mine, is good. The line will have a major effect on my constituency. Therefore, it would be wrong not to raise some of the objections that have been made to me by my constituents.
I am not one of the luddites or troglodytes of which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) spoke so eloquently. But it seems to me that the authorities involved have been either naive or bound by the chains of bureaucracy in their approach. The consultation was brief and was carried out badly in the initial stages. However, I pay tribute to some of the officials of Centro, who did their best, when I drew their attention to some of the problems, to meet my constituents.
In the initial stages, I was overwhelmed with people who came to my advice bureau. On one occasion, 200 people turned up out of the blue at my advice bureau in Castle Bromwich. They had not received their leaflets, because the leaflets had been dumped by the young children who were supposed to have delivered them. Perhaps that is one of the difficulties of public communications. I began by saying that we are in a

complex society. It is terribly important to involve people whose lives will be affected by changes, especially as we are a democracy.
In the early stages of processing what is now the Bill, but was then a proposal, many people felt—and they still feel—totally disadvantaged by the fact that they had not been adequately consulted, although their lives were being affected. It is they who may not be able to park their motor cars and who will have to have a terrible tram—although, of course, it might be a light, super-quiet and benign vehicle—running near them. The whole process of consultation in the early stages was a disaster. I can say that because all the people concerned came to see me. I have with me just part of my key bundle on this. There is more, but I could not carry it all over here, even with the Minister's chauffeur-driven car and the 12 red boxes. Very many people have been to see me and have written to me about this.
The consultation was inadequate in the early stages of the proposals, but I am now concerned that it is complicated by a serious denial of democracy, which will make me oppose the Bill unless I receive a serious reassurance from the promoters. The serious denial of democracy is that the residents' groups, which number five and of which three are in my constituency, and the 35 petitioners who wish to petition against the Bill in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, are being denied that oppor-tunity by Centro, which has challenged their objections.
I understand that the objections have been challenged on two grounds. The first is that locus standi cannot be granted unless the line of deviation affects a particular property. Does that mean that, if the wing of an aeroplane comes within 2 in of a person's hedge, that person cannot be given the right to put his or her case to the four hon. Members who serve on that Committee? Although I understand the technicality, I find it bewildering that my three groups may not be able to make their petition. I understand that other hon. Members have heard from other groups.
I quote from Centro's response:
our action in challenging the locus standi of your group is in accord with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee of Members of Parliament on private Bill procedure which said that 'promoters should be encouraged to police the rules of locus standi'".
That may well be correct in technical terms, but how can my constituents make their views known if I do not speak tonight and if they cannot petition the Court of Referees, which I understand meets on Thursday of this week, and which is chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is to consider the objections? I have written to the chief executive of Centro, asking him to consider withdrawing the technicalities so that the process of democracy can work.
There is some passion in my voice tonight because, whatever the rights and wrongs of the metro, the mere fact that the line of deviation is 12 in or even 12 ft from the homes of those affected should not deny them the right of making their representations.
Having served on a Committee considering a similar Bill relating, strangely enough, to Liverpool and Merseyside, I understand how the procedures work. My good people have briefed counsel, taken a great deal of trouble and done a lot of work to prepare their petitions,


which I have with me. If those petitions are not heard by the hon. Members who will make the judgment, that is a gross denial of democratic procedures.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the midland metro, we should be making a grave mistake if we allowed that to happen. A simple withdrawal of the objections by Centro would allow those people to put their petitions. Although the locus standi argument of the director general may be technically correct, it is not in the spirit of true democracy. Therefore, although I do not want to detain the House for too long, those are the reasons why I am speaking.
The other point that has been made about the denial of locus standi is that those groups are not truly representative of the people affected. I understand that about 90 per cent. of the residents concerned are paid-up members of one of those small groups. As the local Member of Parliament, I have experienced 200 people arriving at my advice bureau when I was expecting only 15 or 20 in that area—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has only about two—they know how helpful he is—but I get more than that. The fact that I had 200 people at my advice bureau shows the strength of people's feelings. Somebody had to organise that. In at least one place—in Smith's Wood—the parish council, which is established by statute, supports the objectors.
I do not accept the argument about the line of deviation being only a few feet or metres from a person's residence. I do not accept the technical argument, that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has recommended that these technical matters should be considered by the promoters. I do not accept the argument that the groups involved are not representative of the individuals affected.
Anyway, what is representation? Presumably it should be by statute, by the parish, town or borough council. However, that is to deny another element of democracy. I am talking about residents' groups, representing the most reasonable people I have come across. At my meeting this weekend, one of them, who might be seen by the promoters as their leading campaigner, said, "I cannot wait to get the metro. I cannot wait to get a better transport system, provided that it is on the right route." That is the whole genesis of my speech.
Before I refer to details about routing—I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not detain the House for longer than I have to—I am concerned that, as part of its process of consultation, Centro commissioned a firm called Terraquest to discuss their properties with those concerned. That was done so badly that people came to my advice bureau fully believing that compulsory purchase orders would be applied to their land.
I am most grateful and pay tribute to Centro for giving me the right information so soon and for telling me that that was not the case. However, by then the damage had been done. The surveys had been carried out and people were absolutely terrified. Surely there must be a better way. Was it a question of timing? Did Centro try too hard, too soon? I know that the survey had to be carried out because of the Bill and that Centro had to know about the properties involved and whether they were freehold, but people were given the strong impression that they would lose hedges, land or even their houses. Centro's methods seem strange.
It is wrong that the House should consider giving the Bill a Second Reading before the consultation has covered key aspects of the routing of the midland metro, such as its

stops or stations. Those matters have still not been decided. As I have said, I am opposed to giving the Bill a Second Reading unless I am given good reasons for agreeing to it. We do not know where the stops will be, because the consultation period is yet to come. That is a matter of major importance to my constituents. Of course, the stops may well be beautiful. I am sorry that I was unable to go to Grenoble. I should have liked to go, but could not, for no other reason than pressure of time. Perhaps the midland metro will sigh benignly to a halt and there will be no parking or other problems, but to proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill that gives draconian powers to Centro before those matters have been resolved is a serious matter.
As I said, whatever the rights and wrongs, there is still great concern in my constituency about house values. That has been expressed by local estate agents and chartered surveyors. I do not know whether it is temporary or will apply in the longer term, but house values have been depressed. One of my constituents has been trying to sell his not very big four-bedroomed house. It is at the top end of Chelmsley Wood, going towards Marston Green, and is on the route of the metro. He has been advised that that property, which he could normally have expected to sell for about £65,000, is now valued at £47,500.
It is classic that the houses on the route appear to be devalued and that houses that are occupied by those who will not be affected by the route and who will have the advantage, which I applaud, of travelling into Birmingham more easily, will not be devalued. As I said, one of my constituents has told me that he cannot wait for the construction of the metro, as it will make his life much easier, provided that it runs on the right routee. Those who live on the route deserve better consultation and greater consideration.
Is the national exhibition centre one of the 35 petitioners? Has it petitioned against part of the route? Have the Birmingham business park and other business interests petitioned against parts of the routeing? If those interests are allowed to petition and constituent groups are not, that is an unhappy situation.

Mr. Rooker: There is no doubt that the private Bill procedure is in a mess. That is why a Select Committee report has been produced. Attempts to stop individuals petitioning against private Bills are bound to throw the system into a worse mess. It is likely that the House will take a dim view at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill if individuals are prevented from exercising their democratic rights before the Committee. That will be especially evident if the business park is allowed to petition, subject to the Minister's answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The business park is under construction and I have visited the site with one or two of my hon. Friends. If the park were allowed to petition arid residents were not, I do not think that the House would allow the Bill to proceed.

Mr. Mills: It is strange that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We often disagree across the Floor of the House. On this occasion, however, he is right.
I have been given information, and I ask whoever is responsible to make the position clear on behalf of the promoters. Will the NEC, the business park or any other industrial interest be allowed to petition? Has any such


interest not been challenged and not referred to the Court of Reference? Will such an interest be able to brief a barrister to express its point of view on changes of route?
With one or two exceptions, all those who have sent me documents are in favour of the metro. They are against the route, or aspects of it, but they are in favour of the metro. They are not awkward or extremely difficult people in the sense that they are saying, "Put the metro in Surrey and we shall not worry about it." Instead, they are asking for specific changes and they have petitioned for those changes. It will be extremely unsatisfactory if their petitions are not heard.
There are three organised groups in my constituency and they are representative. Their petitions have been properly drawn up and they have been properly advised. They were prepared to present themselves as reasonble groups of people. When I spoke to them, they were quiet. Perhaps they were more softly voiced than I have been this evening, especially when I allowed some passion and unhappiness to be demonstrated by my voice. Many strident voices have been heard at many public meetings, but the groups to which I refer are representative. They have distilled logical options from the strident arguments.
I believe that we can gain support from those who are affected by the metro if we produce reasoned alternatives. Are the promoters chained in bureaucracy? Are they unable to change the route because of the relationship with the local authority and others? Are they unable to go back and start again because of the complexities? I ask them to think again. I cannot support them even if the chains of bureaucracy are their problem.
One of the three groups represents the majority of the residents of Auckland drive, with is a long road running alongside Collector road. Some of my colleagues may not know that charming part of Birmingham. It is near Fort Dunlop, where I spent 20 years. Therefore, Collector road is like my back yard. It has for years been extremely under-used, to say the least. It is a very quiet road. I use it many times a week. When I hold my advice bureaus, I travel to and fro on it.
My constituents who live in the area say that the decision to position the route of the metro on the embankment is one to which they object strongly. They submit that the plan should be amended to provide for the construction of a route along the carriageway of Collector road. It is a road almost of motorway standard. It is almost as good as the M42 running north from Dunton Island towards Leicestershire. It is an ill-used road. It has been used for car parking during the motor shows at the NEC. So little is it used that there may be technical problems, but if we are to make progress, we must resolve them.

Mr. Bevan: The route was designed by the local council. It is only a few metres from the preferred route of one of the pressure groups, the ADAM group. That is the group that represents the Auckland drive residents. Solihull council has been emphatic that it does not want to disrupt a major highway. It is especially important that the metro operates on reserved tracks. My hon. Friend should address his remarks to Solihull council.
My hon. Friend knows that extra value has been attributed to the properties that are along the route, not negative value. He claims that the locus standi is not

democratic. A petition against a private Bill can be held only if it has locus standi. The Select Committee has been especially vociferous in emphasising that the rules must be observed.

Mr. Mills: I referred briefly to locus standi, and I am not being facetious when I say that I am standing to put as many points as I can to the House. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is ridiculous that those who are intimately concerned but whose locus standi is dismissed because of the rules are unable to present their views.
However delightful and however charming the vehicle is that passes within a few metres of the dwellings of those who are in that position, does my hon. Friend say that they should have no means of expressing their feelings? Surely they should be able to submit their views to Parliament. The private Bill procedure is arcane. As others have said, it is probably wrong. If we in Parliament have to decide, how can we be petitioned?

Mr. Dennis Turner: Residents are unable to object for reasons other than locus standi. They are unable to do so even if their properties are adjacent to the route of the metro, not adjoining it or in the way of it. The definition of those who are unable to petition is not as narrow as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Mills: I am grateful for that advice. If the three groups that I understand are going to the Court of Referees on Thursday morning are granted the ability to approach the Committee, that will be helpful. I have served on such Committees and I am more than happy to listen to those who have an interest, and these people have an interest. For example, in Helmswood drive, the midland metro will run within a metre of their hedge. If locus standi does not permit such people the opportunity to make their points, perhaps I can make some of them for them.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, that the working group included Solihull council. However, apart from protesting at various meetings, how can my constituents press for changes in the route? Are they to have no further opportunity, as they would do at a public inquiry, where one can ask the Minister to make a reasoned judgment or to make a judgment on the basis of certain facts? Are they just to be told that it is finished and that they will have no further opportunities to make their point heard?
The embankment at Auckland drive is important. Any hon. Member who has travelled from Birmingham to Coventry, not on the motorway but on the side roads from Stonebridge, up the Chester road and down the Collector road towards my old place of employment, Fort Dunlop, will have seen what the embankment means. It was constructed as a wind and sound barrier for the residents against both the motorway and the Collector road. It has a considerable amount of wildlife. One does not expect Solihull council, much loved by me and by those in Chelmsley road, to make claims like this.
There is also the amenity value for the residents, which the presence of the metro on some or all of the embankment would substantially reduce. Proximity of the metro would also have an effect. Having had the advice of experts on this subject, I know that, while the metro may not have a detrimental effect on the capital value of the houses of the majority of those living in Chelmsley road, it would certainly affect those living right by it.

Mr. Bevan: I can quickly answer that point made about possible erosion of the embankment and harm to wildlife, and I hope to my hon. Friend's satisfaction. There will be little erosion. A retaining wall will be used where necessary to keep the embankment height, and further planting will take place.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend. I was going to press him later on landscaping and further planting. He has a good point, because it may be possible to do that on this embankment. I do not accept the arguments of either Solihull council or Centro about siting the metro on part of the embankment when it could just as easily, more acceptably, and without any effect on the wildlife, be positioned on one side of the Collector road.
As a result of lines 50 to 52 of schedule 3, the
Footpath between subway under Collector Road and Auckland Drive at junction with Nightingale Avenue
will be extinguished. My constituents are most concerned about that and would like the problem resolved. The footpath is used by adults and children and it would be dangerous if it crossed the metro track.
I am aware that I am taking up an unfair share of the time, but this matter is important. I press my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, or the promoters who might care to reply elsewhere, or even my hon. Friend the Minister who may be able to advise me, about compensation. Little has been said about that. Those who will be adversely affected directly—that is, if the metro line runs across their property—will be compensated under present legislation. Those who feel that they will be adversely affected indirectly, in the sense that the wing-tip of the aeroplane is within 1 ft—that is, if the metro runs within a short distance of their land—do not know. What provision will there be? How is it proposed to consider compensation? What happens and how does it work? What rights do they have?
Is there any provision in the Bill to require the executive to construct safety fences and noise barriers between the metro and houses occupied by my constituents? It may be that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley about the wall on the embankment at Auckland drive has answered that question.
The next part of my constituency to be affected is Bacons End—a charming part of the world, to be recommended to any of my colleagues who wish to come to see a good community. All my constituents there are concerned about their embankment, which is further down, beyond what is known as the Coles hill roundabout. Going up Collector road, leaving behind Fort Dunlop, one passes the Coles hill roundabout and comes to the next roundabout. There is a charming group of dwellings at Bacons End, at Clopton crescent. Again, there is wildlife on the embankment and amenities for the residents. They have said to me:
It has become a natural habitat for a variety of animals within an otherwise urban area and is used for dog walking, bike riding, exercising children, flying kites and is visually attractive.
On the many occasions that I have passed it, I have seen young people, parents and dogs on it. The presence of the metro would remove the opportunity for such exercise, and substantially reduce the amenity value.
My constituents are most concerned about the value of their homes. In their petition, which they may or may not, due to locus standi, be allowed to have heard, they say that they understand that there is no provision in the Bill for

there to be adequate fencing. They have pointed out to me that one of the purposes of the metro is to persuade people to take public transport as an alternative to private motor cars. Consequently, there is likely to be a drop in the usage of the road in the route along the metro. Therefore, why not position it on the carriageway of the road? As my constituent said, "I can't wait to use the metro." Once people leap on the metro and leave their cars at home, there will not be the traffic problem that we do not have on the Collector road anyway.
For both the Auckland drive and the Bacons End parts of the road, it is important to consider the routeing. The plans as presently lodged permit Centro to construct the metro on any part of the grass embankment as the whole area is within the line of deviation, within the permitted variations. Why cannot that be more limited? How can my constituents feel any confidence in the consultation process when there are no limits, and they do not know exactly where it will be?
Schedule 4 shows the proposed route, including a tunnel that emerges between Collector road and Chester road, which is used by many local children as a play area. That would be impractical if the metro were positioned on that route. If the alternatives to Collector road were considered, that problem would be resolved.
There is more concern about consultation, but I must come to my third subject, which is the alternative. If any right hon. or hon. Member wishes to see it, I have here a map showing that the route leaves the island, cuts down through Berwick's lane and Helmswood drive and then comes back up again and cuts round the national exhibition centre. There is much enthusiasm in the area for the metro, provided that it goes straight along the dual carriageway known as the Chester road. That alternative has been suggested, pressed for and fought for by my constituents all along.
I was in my constituency on Saturday, and I am there most Saturdays. Let us visualise how close the metro will be, particularly to Helmswood drive. We must ask where people will park their cars. What provision has been made for that? There is no point in talking about landscaping there, because there is no room for it. The metro will be almost as close as my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley is to me in the Chamber.

Mr. Bevan: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Helmswood drive and on-street parking. Bays will be provided all along the street in that area, after consultation with residents. Therefore, his point is accepted.
As for the pedestrian subways that will be closed on Moorend avenue and Helmswood drive, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be pleased about that, because local residents have already campaigned for it.
My hon. Friend said that the route goes too close to houses on Helmswood drive and Berwick's lane, but that route was approved by Solihull council. It is important for the route to go close to the population; otherwise there is little point in having a metro. Line 2 was designed so that no residential properties would be demolished and no gardens would be taken up, and I am advised that very few properties are less than 30 m from the track. In Grenoble, the vehicles go within a few metres of dwellings and shops in the city centre and there are no objections whatever.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his usual gracious way of blaming Solihull council for not objecting


to the scheme. The local residents' group and residents in Moorend avenue, Berwick's lane, Helmswood drive, Chelmsley road and Coleshill Heath road believe that the present route will be severely detrimental to residents in the area. I accept that there are parking problems now, but those are, by and large, resolvable. Other anxieties have been expressed to me. One charming lady who recently lost her husband asked whether a hearse would be able to gain access, and there is also the question of ambulances and fire engines. Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me about that.
The whole point of the residents' argument is that the layout of the area is predominantly residential. It is owner-occupied and tenanted, and is not a rich area but mixed. The people there work in Birmingham and would welcome access to Birmingham by the metro. It is the proximity of the proposed route to homes in the area that is the problem. Therefore, they have proposed an alternative, and if they could petition the Committee about that, I should be most grateful.
The houses in the area were originally built on green belt land and it is a pleasant environment in which to live. The introduction of the metro through the area would fundamentally affect its nature. The grass verges, trees and shrubbery are not good now, but they would be non-existent, and there is no possibility of landscaping, in view of the layout of the area—I do not see how it can be done.
My hon. Friend said that there would be consultations about parking, but how can I agree to a Second Reading of a Bill that gives Centro the power to introduce the metro without my constituents having the opportunity to discuss where the parking bays will be?

Mr. Bevan: The bays will be provided after consultation with local residents.

Mr. Mills: I accept that from my hon. Friend, but surely, before we proceed and give Centro the power to introduce the metro, we should have resolved the problems of stops, stays, stations, lines, parking and landscaping. It should all be laid out, so that people can say, "Here it is and we shall tell our Member of Parliament that we accept it."

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is sniggering, but as a rail man I suppose that he is not too worried about parking.

Mr. Snape: I was not sniggering. I was somewhat surprised at what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Is he seriously asking the House to believe that every dot and comma should be drawn up before we agree to the scheme, or that parking and the whole line of the route should be arranged? If that was the case, would not he and his constituents shout that it was fixed, because everything had been done beforehand? One cannot draw up a scheme with every dot and comma and also claim that there should be consultation afterwards.

Mr. Mills: Life is difficult.

Mr. Snape: So was my question.

Mr. Mills: No, I am coming to that. In most instances, when a complex change affects people's lives, such as a planning decision, they know what is going to happen. For example, they know that 20 houses will be built and they can object or not object, or they know that there will be a change of use of a house to a shop or a garage, and they know the details.
We are talking about stops, stays, and barriers, of the imposition of double yellow lines along a stretch of Helmswood drive and of parking.
I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is a modest man. He probably has a small house and does not have parking provided, so he parks in front of the house in the street. If he were told that the parking bay was going to be 20 yd up the road, he would probably feel a bit fractious himself, and he might wish to have some of the i's dotted and t's crossed before procedures went ahead.

Mr. Snape: I do not mind being insulted by the hon. Gentleman at any time, but I should be glad if he withdrew the description "modest".

Mr. Mills: Of course. I fully understand—the hon. Gentleman lives in Chateau Snape, in some suitable part of his constituency.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I feel that my hon. Friend should know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is one of my constituents.

Mr. Mills: In which case, the hon. Gentleman's credentials could not be higher.
My final technical point about Moor end avenue is that it will be reduced from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway.
There will be health problems and loss of privacy, which will affect constituents' lives, and they should be balanced against the economic regeneration. If we could find a solution to those problems and make relatively minor changes to the route in two cases, and a major change of route in the case of Chester road, the proposition would be welcomed. It would serve the NEC and my constituents and it would be popular with them, popular with me, much loved and much cherished.

Mr. David Winnick: I think that all hon. Members would agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) that life is difficult. I wish to apologise to the House for having a sore throat.
I have no quarrel with the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) presented the case today. I disagree with some aspects of it and I shall refer briefly to the reasons why, but he promoted the Bill in a moderate and reasoned speech, and it is helpful to the House that it was done in such a way.
I support the metro scheme, as I have stated from the start. In my view, all the arguments and reasons given by the hon. Member for Yardley and other hon. Members this evening for the scheme and for extra forms of public transport in the black country and the west midlands are perfectly valid.
Some object to the Bill on the grounds that further public transport is not needed, but that is certainly not my view. It is important to point out that a substantial number


of people in the west midlands—certainly in my constituency—rely on public transport. We should get rid of the notion that everyone or nearly everyone either owns a car or has access to a motor vehicle, as that is certainly not the case.
I must also declare an interest—although not a commercial one—as we are rightly so sensitive about declaring interests these days. I am a regular user of the public transport in my area. I need to use public transport at every opportunity. Since the Government changed the regulations a few years ago, it is not pleasant, particularly on a cold windy evening, to have to wait as I have waited—and, more important, as my constituents have to wait—quite a while before the bus arrives. I do not blame the transport authority: we on this side anticipated the problem, and warned people at the time.
I am not too happy about the way in which the transport authority dealt with two of my constituents. Following some negotiation over their property, they concluded that their right to express their objection to the metro was being taken away. As soon as I learned about the matter, I wrote to the authority. The director general replied:
Naturally, one aspect of reaching an agreement with such property owners, is for them to undertake not to object to the proposal whilst we, for our part, undertake to do or not do whatever it is that we have agreed through the negotiations. Clearly, if this was not so, there would be no basis for any agreement between us.
It is nonsense to put a couple in a small house on the same level as the transport authority. Of course people will take measures to protect their houses; why should they not do so?
I was not pleased with the director general's reply, I am a democrat—although some hon. Members may question that from time to time—and I believe that people have a basic right to put their point of view at every opportunity. I therefore wrote back to the transport authority expressing my concern. The reply—dated 1 March; my letter was sent on 15 February—states:
we had no intention of infringing their rights as citizens to engage in free speech or other activity.
Of course I am pleased about that. The letter goes on to say that the authority would not regard the couple
as being in breach of the undertaking by attending meetings opposed to Metro or expressing views
hostile to it. I am pleased about that as well, but the letter continues:
However"—
for there is a "however"—
as you will I am sure appreciate, a different view would be taken if a formal Petition against the Bill was deposited by them.
I hope that this clarifies the matter.
If the transport authority wants to take public opinion with it, such a restriction, however it is argued, is unacceptable—not only to me as the local Member of Parliament, but I hope, to the House of Commons and to individual Members on both sides of it.

Mr. Bevan: The object of the letter of 1 March—of which I have a copy—was to emphasise the democratic rights of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As I said at the outset, however, the constitutional processes applying to private Bills are spelt out very strictly: that is the reason for the differentiation concerning the petition.

Mr. Winnick: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I praised him earlier, and I do not want to fall out

with him now, but I do not accept the need to place any restriction on my constituents, and I imagine that the House as a whole agrees with me.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I was pleased to give way to the hon. Member for Yardley—who, I am sure, has a list of matters that he wishes to raise—to refute the points I am making. I do not criticise him, for he has a job to do and he is doing it competently, but it would serve no useful purpose for me to give way to him every time I criticise aspects of the proposed route. Moreover, I shall deal with some of the issues at the end of my speech, as the hon. Member for Meriden did.
The proposed metro route through parts of Willenhall, which is in my constituency, has prompted harsh criticism from residents who consider that they will be adversely affected. The hon. Member for Yardley rightly said that we were a Parliament, and explained the origins of the word "Parliament". The fact that I happen to be in favour of the Bill, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), does not alter my belief that one of the purposes of the House of Commons—long may it remain so—is to allow people who feel strongly to ensure that their view is expressed in the Chamber or in Committee, even if it is wrong or misguided. Although the hon. Gentleman's speech took up more time than I intend mine to take, I have no criticism of that aspect, or of the way in which he outlined his constituents' objections to the Bill.
Some of my constituents oppose the Bill for wider reasons than worry about their properties. They are not exactly delighted, however, at the thought of passengers being able to look through the windows—perhaps even upstairs windows—of their houses, which may be overlooked by the metro, and their anxieties have been expressed repeatedly in both meetings and correspondence. I do not think that we should dismiss such genuine concern out of hand, even if the promoters consider it misguided.
There are, however, broader environmental worries. I remind hon. Members, if they need to be reminded, that my borough is urban and built up, although there are some delightful green open spaces only about some two miles away. The proposed metro route would destroy the grassy areas and places of safety for young children around Stroud avenue in Willenhall, and would also do away with the existing walkways. An old railway line now serves as a pleasant public footpath, and no doubt that would go as well.
Concern has repeatedly been expressed about the memorial park in Willenhall, which is its only park and originates from Willenhall's wish after the first world war to commemorate those who died by providing open space within a park. The proposed route would take up part of the park. It is only a small part, I accept, but it should be remembered theat the old railway line has been part of the memorial park for a very long time.
It was put to me—I wrote accordingly to the transport authority—that the metro could go underground through parts of Willenhall. I realise that there may be technical problems, but the reply that I received did not deal with those to any great extent, although it made some reference to possible dangers. It should be said that the route will go underground through parts of Birmingham, and if there are no dangers to Birmingham, there should presumably be none for Willenhall. The reply stated that an


underground route through Willenhall would significantly increase costs and make the prospect less viable, but I am not altogether impressed by that argument: I should have thought that more valid reasons should be given if there are real objections by the authority.
I promised my constituents that I would raise their objections on the Floor of the House. As I said, I am in favour of the metro. Anything that can be done to improve transport in the west midlands is to be welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to an integrated transport system. No Opposition Members would object to such a system for the west midlands. However, according to their statement—which I saw only today, although it was possibly issued last week, but I make no criticism of that—
The Promoters respectfully request that the Bill should be given a Second Reading so that they should be allowed to put forward to the Committee
all the reasons why the Bill should be passed and their case for the clauses in the Bill. That is understandable; that is why the promoters want the Bill to be given a Second Reading, so that, when it reaches the Select Committee, it will be scrutinised—or at least, I hope it will be.
If it is right for the promoters to argue their case in Committee, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, why are the objectors not allowed to argue their case in Committee? I understand that the passenger transport authority objects to the people in my constituency who are opposed to the proposed metro route arguing their case in Committee. If the metro system is to be constructed in time, the maximum good will needs to be created. Can it be argued that the best way to create good will is to state, with all the powers that such bodies have, that it is unnecessary for the objectors to be heard?
If the Bill receives a Second Reading, on Thursday next the Court of Referees—a body of 11 senior Members of Parliament—will decide whether that objection should be upheld. I understand that it would not be in order this evening to make further reference to the Court of Referees, so I shall not do so. Nevertheless, having said that I am in favour of the measure, I should be much happier if there were no bureaucratic objection to the case for these people being heard. If the objectors' arguments did not stand the test of examination, the Select Committee would reach that conclusion.
Why, therefore, should we go to these lengths and say that the objectors ought not to be heard? If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope that, even at this late stage, further consideration will be given to that matter. The passenger transport authority needs the good will of the local public. I hope that it does not intend to undermine it by going about matters in a way that will undoubtedly antagonise many people.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I begin by declaring an interest, since the matter—as some hon. Members have already remarked—is sensitive. I was a consultant to the bank that gave advice on the feasibility study when the metro concept was originally considered.
I sympathise with the metro concept and with everything that it could do for public transport in the west midlands, and around Birmingham in particular. However, I am still doubtful whether a light railway

system—or what used to be known as a tramway system, to call it by its proper name—is really the best answer for this conurbation.
I have visited many capital cities and other cities throughout Europe. I have been to Grenoble and Lyons. I have also visited Stockholm, Vienna, Munich and a dozen other cities where they are hurrying and scurrying to remove trams and light railways and to place their transport systems underground, with occasional aboveground exits. I am therefore concerned that the passenger transport authority is running into what appear to be serious objections from local residents about the route. That ought to be unnecessary, particularly in an area where there is so much disused and under-utilised railway track.
I should stress to the promoters of the Bill that, when future routes are planned, maximum use should be made of existing rail networks. If those networks are under-utilised and perhaps a light rail system would attract more passengers because the stops can be made more frequent, negotiations should begin with British Rail immediately or as soon as practical to usurp those rails and put them to better use.
I recognise the significant advantages that the system would provide for our conurbation in alleviating congestion. I am relieved that the latest proposal for lines adds a viability to the concept which was not present in the original proposals. It was made very clear to the promoters of the Bill at an early stage that some commercial viability had to be established, particularly if some private funding, and ultimately EC funding, was to be introduced into the scheme. The lines under consideration would help to ensure that viability. I feel that further routes under the city of Birmingham would further enhance that and enhance the attraction to residents along the route and around the black country.

Mr. Rooker: It so happens that the hon. Gentleman's point about the city of Birmingham was the only point on which I offered any specific comment in consultation. The result is the exact opposite of what I suggested, but I make no complaint about that. Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that routes under the city centre of Birmingham will require people to go underground, as they have been forced to do in the past few years, whereas the advantage of routes on the surface through most of the city centre would have brought about a spin-off in environmental improvements?
That point does not seem to have been taken on board, despite the planned £130 million-worth of tunnelling. When the hon. Gentleman offered his views on the Bill, as we both represent Birmingham constituencies, what was his view? Did he agree with tunnels or overground, environmental improvements or sticking people into subways? People do not like going into subways. They understand the old Victorian tube network in London, but frankly I do not think that they will accept that a 21st-century railway network needs to push people underground.

Mr. Hargreaves: I hear with interest what the hon. Gentleman says, but in my experience, having travelled through major cities in Europe similar to ours, people do not like large, heavy railed vehicles trundling down busy streets in major city centres. I do not consider that Birmingham would necessarily be enhanced by large or


light rail transit down the centre of our streets. Perhaps those streets would be enhanced by pedestrianisation. I agree that people would prefer streets without vehicles and that the environment would be enhanced by having fewer cars in those streets, but I do not think that the answer is to stick light rails down the centre of Birmingham. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he accepts that I have thought about the matter with some care.
I visited Stockholm, which is quite an attractive city, rather smaller than Birmingham but of interest as they have torn up their trams and introduced a system which runs underground in the city centre but is similar to light rail transit as it approaches the suburbs. In those tunnels, which are not as deep and cavernous as our Underground in London, they have introduced a most charming shopping arena and other facilities which are safe and clean and a pleasant environment for people to work in. I believe that we should follow that system in Birmingham city centre. I put that forward for the hon. Gentleman's consideration and interest should he have time to visit that city.
Finally, I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. It is important that such a transport network wins the hearts and minds of the people who will use it. There has already been one storm, which may have resulted perhaps from a lack of consultation or from a lack of public relations.
Opposition Members criticised the promoters' use of public relations. It seems that they are experiencing difficulty both ways. They tried public relations, but fell at the second fence. Having attracted people to the concept of the metro, which is indisputable, they slammed the door in the face of those who disagreed about its route or about other aspects. If we are to benefit from a metro network around Birmingham, and through the black country to the NEC and surrounding areas, it is important that people are enthusiastic about it, or they will not use it.
As a slight tease to my constituent, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should like to put down a marker. I support the Bill, but I should be horrified if it were proposed to run the metro down the centre of the Stratford road.

Mr. Rooker: Why?

Mr. Hargreaves: Because light railways do not run well on through roads.

Mr. Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting speech, and perhaps to The Independent for so rapidly provoking it. If the metro were to run down the middle of the Stratford road, presumably steps would be taken to prevent parking on both sides of it and the loading and unloading of light and heavy commercial vehicles, which occurs all day every day and is a prime cause of the congestion about which the hon. Gentleman, and I as one of his constituents, frequently complain.

Mr. Hargreaves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his kindly interpretation of my speech. I am putting down a marker on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and myself. If it were proposed that the metro should travel down the middle of the Stratford road, I should object, because light rail systems do not work

happily in shopping areas or on through routes such as the Stratford road, which will become increasingly busy because of the M40–M42 link.
I shall support the motion, but I shall have doubts about the Bill unless changes are made to its presentation and to its consultation procedures.

Mr. Terry Davis: I oppose the Bill because I object to what is described as the Birmingham to Solihull route from Five Ways and the convention centre to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport. I object specifically to the proposed section running through the Bromford estate and Firs estate in my constituency.
Anyone who has driven on the M6 knows that part of my constituency. Fort Dunlop is a well-known landmark to the north of the motorway and the Bromford and Firs estates are on the other side of it. The area consists of houses, low-rise flats and tower blocks, with a narrow ribbon of land between the houses and motorway. The West Midlands passenger transport executive wants to run the midland metro along that ribbon.
The Firs estate was built after the second world war, and the Bromford estate was built in the 1960s. The houses facing the motorway were built in the style of that time, with big picture windows. The motorway was constructed a few years later on stilts. It is one of the longest stretches of motorway viaduct in western Europe. Over the years, trees have gradually been planted and a narrow green ribbon developed for recreational use.
My constituents have now been told that all their efforts to improve their local environment have been in vain. The midland metro will bulldoze its way along the line between the houses and the motorway. The trees that have been planted by local schoolchildren will be uprooted, the cycle track will be realigned, the football pitch removed and the children's play area relocated. In introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) claimed that the environment would be enhanced wherever the metro ran. That is a travesty in terms of the Bromford estate.
Much worse than the loss of these amenities is the fact that the people who live along the route will have the metro running as close as 40 yd to their houses and it will be even closer—not even the PTA can tell us how close, but perhaps a matter of a few feet—to one block of flats.
What will they see from their picture windows? No one knows, not even the PTA. No one can tell us what the overhead wires and their supports will look like. No one can tell us how obtrusive they will be. No one can even tell us where the supports—pylons, gantries, or whatever they are called—will be located. All that they can tell us is that my constituents will have vehicles travelling at speeds up to 50 mph passing in front of their picture windows every five minutes. One of my constituents was even told that the PTA did not want to screen the metro route in any way because it was relying on local residents to keep an eye on it to prevent vandalism.
That brings me to the other objection to this section of the metro route—noise. My constituents know a lot about the effect of noise on the quality of life. I have explained that the M6 runs alongside and above the Bromford estate. In the early 1970s, the estate's residents got together with residents of other areas along the route of the motorway


and campaigned for noise insulation. Eventually, a scheme was introduced and a large number of flats and houses were insulated. Unfortunately, many were ruled to be ineligible and they are precisely the houses that are nearest to the proposed route for the midland metro. It does not stop there.
At that point, the motorway runs above the railway line from Birmingham to Derby. It does not cross the railway. In effect, the railway goes through a tunnel with open sides. Not surprisingly, the noise of the trains echoes and reverberates and the result is disturbing, to put it mildly.
That is not all. One of the biggest problems in my constituency is the noise from aircraft using Birmingham airport. I calculate that at least half my constituents suffer from noise so great that they cannot watch television or conduct a conversation by telephone or face to face whenever a plane goes overhead. The air traffic controllers at Birmingham airport told me that it was not surprising that there was a major problem with aircraft noise in my constituency. The pilots are supposed to take their planes to a height of 1,000 ft before turning towards open countryside and the most commonly used planes at Birmingham airport reach a height of 1,000 ft when they get above the Bromford estate.
What do the Bill's sponsors have to say about noise? All hon. Members will have received today a statement by Sherwood and Company, the parliamentary agents for the PTA, which said:
The high capacity lightweight rail vehicles intended for operation on the Metro will result in lower noise levels than those experienced from buses and trains.
That statement is grossly misleading. We are talking not about replacing buses and trains in front of my constituents' homes but about additional noise for those residents. Birmingham city council's environmental health department has told local councillors and me that 118 houses and flats could be so badly affected by the noise of the metro that they should be provided with noise insulation if the route went ahead.
Of course, as anyone with experience of noise from aircraft or from motorways will agree, no provision for noise insulation is good enough. There are two important reasons for that. In the first place, what matters is the total amount of noise—not the noise from several single sources, but the total amount.
The noise from the metro may not be significant in itself for a particular house, but when it is added to the noise from the M6, from the railway that runs underneath the motorway, and from planes taking off from Birmingham airport—none of which the powers-that-be regard as significant—the total amount of noise could become intolerable for the ordinary family living in an ordinary house. But the Department of Transport, British Rail, Birmingham airport officials and the passenger transport authority can all shrug their shoulders and, with a clear conscience, claim that their noise is "lower than that experienced from buses and trains."
The second problem about noise insulation is that, obviously, as soon as windows are opened, it ceases to work. That is why the problem is always worse in summer. There is nothing that the passenger transport authority, or this House, or anybody else, can do about that nuisance.
Hon. Members may wonder why there is no problem in any constituency except mine and that of the hon. Member

for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Why is not the House full of people making similar points on behalf of their constituents? The answer lies in the route itself. Although this metro route begins at Five Ways and runs through the city centre, it is underground until it gets to the wasteland of the heartlands—a derelict industrial area. It runs through that area until it reaches Bromford Bridge and enters my constituency. Only at that point does it begin to affect anyone's home.
At that point, against the background of the problems that I have described, one would have expected the West Midlands passenger transport authority to be particularly careful about consulting the people who live in the Bromford estate. Tragically, the arrangements for consultation were grossly inadequate. They were regarded as inadequate by myself, by local councillors and by the residents. A summary of our opinion is that the arrangements for consultation were a farce. The members and officers of the West Midlands passenger transport authority are totally incapable of understanding the difference between informing people and consulting people. The information that people were given was sparse, and the consultation was virtually nil.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a tremendous amount of consultation. I listened very carefully to his remarks. He listed leaflets. But leaflets are not consultation; leaflets are information. He listed exhibitions. But exhibitions are not consultation, unless one invites people's views and then pays attention to those views. Otherwise, exhibitions are only information. The hon. Gentleman mentioned meetings.
I asked the passenger transport authority what it regarded as the consultation arrangements for my constituents. It gave me a list of meetings that had taken place—meetings with Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and Councillors.
The first meeting, on 25 April 1989, was with T. Davis, MP. That so-called meeting consisted of my giving coffee to the director general and the head of communications of the passenger transport authority in the Strangers' Cafeteria, where they told me that they could not discuss the route through my constituency because it was a matter for the city council. That meeting is described as consultation.
Then there was a meeting with John Tomlinson, MEP. I do not know what took place at that meeting; Mr. Tomlinson is not the MEP for the area in which my constituency is located.
Next on the list is a presentation to city council members. Let that be noted: "presentation". But that is not consultation.
The next item on this list of so-called consultations is a presentation on 10 May 1989 to west midlands Members of Parliament at the House of Commons by Birmingham city council. Once again I say, "presentation" is not consultation.
The next on the list is a briefing of Councillor R. Spector. I do not know which ward Councillor Spector represents, but it is not in my constituency.
Then there is a meeting with T. Davis, MP, and Councillors Turner and Jones at Birmingham city council offices. That meeting certainly took place. We asked a lot of detailed questions that could not be answered.
Then—still on consultation—is listed a meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I do not know what the result of that meeting was, but my hon. Friend the Member for


Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) subsequently announced that he agreed with me about wanting to have the metro rerouted.
Next on the list is a meeting with the sole surviving Conservative councillor in my constituency, who subsequently announced that he agreed with the Labour party on this issue.
Then we have a meeting with C. Crawley, MEP, who is the MEP for my constituency. After the meeting, she announced that she opposed the route through my constituency.
Next comes a meeting with T. Davis, MP, dated 20 October. That was the occasion on which I went to the city engineers' department and the city engineers agreed that I was right and that it was physically possible to reroute the metro on the other side of the motorway.
Then there came another meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I am not sure what happened, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has not told me that he changed his mind as a result.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not in the Chamber but, as my Member of Parliament, he confirmed to me today that he still believes that the route should go the other side of the M6—in other words, into his constituency.

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There followed five meetings with residents' groups and other associations—two with the Bromford community centre committee, which is opposed to the route, one with Kevin Hawkins and Forse, the group that has tried to petition against the route, one with the Bromford Conservative group, which I believe to be opposed to the route, and one with the Birmingham branch of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, of whose views I am not certain.
Under the heading
Activities following the submission of the Bill"—
this is still supposed to be consultation—I read that, on 30 November 1989, a reception at the House of Commons was attended by the hon. Members for Yardley, for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Northfield.
Then we have a meeting on 22 January with T. Davis, MP at Summer lane. That meeting was arranged by the hon. Member for Yardley and I shall come to it in a moment. But that is not consultation; that was never consultation; it was information.
My constituents, the local councillors in my constituency and myself suggested in June 1989, after the route was made public, that it would be a good idea if we had real consultation. We suggested that the way to do that was to set up a working party with representatives of the city council, the passenger transport authority and local residents to discuss the route as it would affect our part of Birmingham.
That request was made in June 1989, and nothing was done about it until the hon. Member for Yardley arranged a meeting for me with the passenger transport authority in January, which I shall come to in a moment. Tonight, however, the hon. Gentleman told the House that there were changes in the original route through the Bromford estate as a result of what he described as consultation.

Mr. Bevan: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Davis: I am not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall certainly give way.

Mr. Bevan: As a matter of fact, I regard the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend even though he sits on the Opposition Benches, and I am not frightened of saying so.
I think that I was wrong in what I said. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there had been any changes in the route, and I thought that he meant the whole route. When I said that it had been moved, I had in mind the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). I want to put that right straight away.
If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall take this opportunity while I am on my feet to deal with another matter. Although the hon. Member for Hodge Hill does not construe any of the meetings that he has mentioned so far as consultation, he did not mention—on top of all the leaflets and officers' meetings at the Bromford neighbourhood office—the sports centre meeting, which I should have thought was consultation.
It must be noted that, in all those consultations, Centro received very few letters or telephone calls from Bromford residents. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that every attempt had been made to consult all along—and that includes the meeting that I subsequently arranged for him because he told me then that no meetings had been held.
Hon. Members have referred to the option of taking the route the other side of the M6 and said that that would be more sensible. That option was looked at, but it would have cost another £16·6 million and would have reduced the potential number of travellers by two thirds.

Mr. Davis: If I may intervene in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I will come to those points in due course if I am allowed to make my speech.
The hon. Gentleman is right. A public meeting was held. It was requested by the councillors in my constituency and by me, and that meeting was very well attended. I do not have a record of the number of phone calls made by my constituents, nor do I have a record of the number of letters that they sent. If the hon. Member for Yardley is concerned about the number of phone calls, it would be easy to get my constituents to telephone the PTA. However, my constituents thought that they should be consulted face to face. Consultation does not take place on the telephone. Telephone calls may be all right for protests, but they are no good for consultation.
My constituents wanted consultation. What we requested and what all the councillors in my constituency supported——

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley may shake his head, but even the Conservative councillors supported our request. We wanted a working party to discuss the route as it affected that part of Birmingham.
The hon. Member for Yardley referred to the public meeting at which we made clear our views about the two proposed routes. Earlier, the hon. Member for Yardley said that the chosen route was, as he described it, on the periphery of the Bromford estate instead of along what he called a spine road—he means Bromford drive. To suggest that the change was the result of consultation is a travesty of what really happened.
The PTA thought that it had been clever. It told the people on the Bromford estate that there were two alternative routes through the estate, both of which were bad, but that one was worse than the other because it affected more homes. The PTA asked the people on the Bromford estate to choose between the alternatives.
The PTA was trying to set one set of residents against the other. It wanted to set them arguing among themselves about whose homes should be affected. That was the old tactic of divide and rule.
The residents, local councillors and I refused to be taken in by the clever people in the PTA. We refused to choose whose home should be sacrificed. Instead, we came up with a third option which would not affect any homes.
The hon. Member for Yardley referred to a referendum. He said that the clear majority of people affected by the route are in favour of it. He referred to a figure of 62 per cent. in favour. That statistic conceals the truth.

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley may disagree with me, but I found the figures in the PTA's documents. The PTA admits that, in the Bromford estate, only 10 per cent. of people were in favour of either of the metro routes. Ninety per cent. voted against the proposal. The hon. Member for Yardley has done less than his duty to the House by not stressing that point.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a previous scheme. That is true. Five or six years ago, a scheme was abandoned because, according to the hon. Member for Yardley, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not sure what he means by the wrong time, but it was certainly in the wrong place. But the officers and some members of the PTA do not agree with the hon. Member for Yardley. They have said openly and publicly that they still believe that the original route, demolishing one side of Coleshill road, was the best possible option.
The hon. Member for Yardley also said that the new route would help to regenerate the industrial wastelands of Birmingham. That is an interesting comment and it is precisely what my constituents, the councillors in my constituency and I have suggested.
We suggested that the metro route should run on the other side of the motorway where no one lives. We suggested that it should run through the Fort Dunlop site, which is ripe for redevelopment. That site has been included in the heartlands area to which I referred earlier and which the hon. Member for Yardley described as an industrial area scheduled for redevelopment. The metro is intended to serve that heartlands area elsewhere along its route.
If the metro ran through the Fort Dunlop site to the north of the motorway, instead of through the Bromford estate to the south, no one's home would be affected. A spokesman for the West Midlands passenger transport authority, Mr. Michael Parker, has said publicly that the residents objecting to this Bill are trying to move the metro from their backyard to someone else's backyard. As for my constituents, that is a completely unjustified slur on a

group of very reasonable and very responsible people. We have suggested a different route which goes through Fort Dunlop and affects nobody's backyard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to legitimate objections to development near someone's home, the need to strike a balance and consider where legitimate objections shade into unreasonable objections, and the need to put the development near people instead of on derelict land. In Birmingham, for most of the route, the development runs through derelict land. It does not go near anyone's home until it reaches the Bromford estate.
Not only residents of the Bromford estate have suggested the alternative route. It is supported by all the councillors in the ward, by all the councillors in my constituency, by myself as local Member of Parliament, by our Member of the European Parliament, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, whose views are particularly important because the Fort Dunlop site is in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South explained that it was sometimes difficult to choose between sectarian interests and the broader public interest. But this is not a case of being opposed to the metro system; it is a case of being opposed to the route as it will affect the Bromford estate. It is not only a small group of residents, but the overwhelming majority of people in that estate, all their councillors, their Member of Parliament and their Member of the European Parliament. We asked for a working party to consider our objections and our alternative route, and our request was rejected. I inform my hon. Friends from Walsall that my consultation experience has been very different from theirs.
The response to the alternative by the West Midlands passenger transport authority has been as inadequate as the original arrangements for consultation. Basically, it told us that there are three reasons for rejecting it, and two of those reasons were reflected by the hon. Member for Yardley. First, it told us that it was not physically possible, because a new road called a spine road—that is where the term comes from—is planned for the northern side of the motorway to assist redevelopment of the heartlands, and it was physically impossible to find room for a spine road and the metro.
That is a serious objection, so I went to see the chairman of Birmingham Heartlands, a former conservative Member of this House, Sir Reginald Eyre, and I went to the city engineers' department. I was told that in fact it was physically possible to find room for both the road and the metro. So we knocked that objection on the head. The PTA then fell back on its second objection, which was, "Ah, we don't really mean that it is physically impossible; we mean that it is too expensive." We asked how expensive, and it said, "An extra £12 million." It was not £16 million. The hon. Member for Yardley used a bogus figure, which I will explain to him afterwards in detail if he wishes. The extra cost is £12 million. That is the figure that we got. We were told that it will cost that much because a tunnel would have to be built to get the metro to the other side of the motorway.
That sounded like a lot of money, so we asked how that sum compared with the total cost of the scheme. We were told that the total cost of the route from Five Ways to Birmingham airport would be £224 million. We said, "That sounds an even bigger amount of money." We were


told, "Yes, it is expensive because we need to build a tunnel through the city centre." We said, "Oh yes, how much will that tunnel cost?"
We were then told that the authority was planning to provide not one but five separate tunnels, at a cost of £100 million, to ensure that the metro is environmentally acceptable in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), plus £7·5 million to get the metro from my constituency into the neighbouring constituency of Meriden, plus another £12·5 million for tunnels in Solihull. The authority is willing to spend £120 million for five tunnels elsewhere, but it will not spend £12 million—one tenth of the total—for a tunnel to ensure that the route is environmentally acceptable to the people who live on the Bromford estate.
When the PTA was faced with that comparison, it fell back on its third objection. It said, "In any case, we cannot put the metro on the other side of the motorway because it would have an adverse effect of ridership. We want the people of the Bromford estate to use it. We do not think that the people of Bromford estate will go to the other side of the motorway to use it. We want to put the metro as near as possible to the homes of people living in the Bromford estate so that they can pop on to the metro and go to Five Ways, the convention centre, the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport whenever they like."
The residents and I asked the authority to tell us what the effects on ridership would be. It told us that if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the number of people using it would be reduced by two thirds. That is the figure that the hon. Member for Yardley used. When we asked what that meant in terms of passenger journeys, we were told that the number of trips—that is what the authority calls it—would be reduced from between 1,900 and 2,200 trips a day to between 500 and 800 trips a day. When we expressed some incredulity about those figures, we were told that they came out of the computer of the passenger transport authority. We all know about computers. My constituents and I wanted to know why the computer said that there would be a reduction of two thirds, or 66 per cent., rather than some other percentage.
We asked the passenger transport authority what assumptions it had put into the computer to produce the figures. We were told, "You will have to come back because we do not have time to do it today and the man who is responsible for it has to catch a train to Derby." That is what they call consultation.
As the House will have gathered, my constituents are not easily fooled. By now they have come to distrust any figures given to them by the passenger transport authority. They have looked at the report given to the city council in January about the effect on ridership figures of moving the metro route.
The residents of Bromford estate have drawn my attention to the one thing that we have been told about ridership figures. The figures assume that, if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, it would not be possible to provide a station at Bromford Bridge. At the same time, one of the few facts that we have elicited about the calculation of the extra cost—which produced a figure of £12 million for a tunnel—is that it includes £7·5 million for the cost of providing an underground station at Bromford Bridge.
The passenger transport authority and the hon. Member for Yardley claim at one and the same time that,

if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the ridership figures would be reduced by two thirds because there would not be a station at Bromford Bridge, and that it would be prohibitively expensive for the metro to go north of the motorway because it would mean building an underground station at Bromford Bridge. They cannot have it both ways.
The House will understand why my constituents, the local councillors and I are beginning to suspect that the West Midlands passenger transport authority has made up its mind that the metro will run through the Bromford estate and is trying to cook the figures to justify its choice. My constituents have suggested a constructive alternative, but the only response of the passenger transport authority has been to oppose it with arguments that are incorrect, incredible and inconsistent.
I now come to what I regard as the worst aspect of the affair. Hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber are probably saying to themselves that a case has been made for a careful and independent examination in Committee of the details of the route as it will affect the Bromford and Firs estates. Supporters of the Bill may argue, "The objections are merely details; let us vote for the Bill tonight. Let us vote for it in principle and leave the details of the route to the Committee. After all, the residents of the Bromford and Firs estates have petitioned against the Bill and their case can be examined in Committee." I regret to tell the House, as other hon. Members have, that the determination of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to bulldoze the Bill and the route on to the statute book knows no hounds of decency or democracy.
As soon as my constituents lodged their petition against the Bill, the passenger transport authority lodged an objection to their right to be heard by a Committee of the House, on the grounds that the authority did not intend compulsorily to purchase my constituents' homes but only to impose unacceptable noise levels and take away their view. This is a matter to be settled by the Court of Referees, and I ask the House to take note of the attitude of the West Midlands passenger transport authority.
Altogether, 34 organisations have petitioned against the Bill, including banks, property developers, businesses, educational institutions, statutory undertakings and British Rail. They include organisations as diverse as the Post Office and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and five residents' groups in Walsall, Solihull and my constituency.
The Minister suggested that the Bill should be given its Second Reading so that it can be examined in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Yardley suggested much the same in introducing the Bill. However, unlike the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was kind enough to express his concern on this point. My constituents are much heartened by my hon. Friend's letter on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, which told them in September:
During the last metro controversy in the area, I did make the point to Councillor Bateman that it was impossible to implement a new transport system without the active support of the residents. I will liaise with Terry Davis over this matter once Parliament has resumed to ensure that no development takes place without the consultation and consent of local residents.
There is no doubt that the project does not have the consent of the residents in my constituency. The passenger


transport authority is trying to stop residents putting their views to a Committee of this House. It has objected to all the resident groups' rights to be heard.
Those residents are ordinary people—people whose only investments are in their homes—yet the passenger transport authority wants to prevent them from having the opportunity to explain their fears and objections to Members of Parliament.
Throughout the build-up to the Bill, the attitude of the passenger transport authority has been, "Don't question us. We know what is good for you." That is not democracy, it is dictatorship, and that in itself is a good enough reason for opposing the Bill.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have spent six hours in the Chamber, but it has been worth it because I have been able to listen to the debate and to hon. Members who actually represent their constituencies. As transport spokesman for my party, I have received representations from Walsall members of my party which I should like to put on the record tonight. I also represent people who have written to me out of the blue because I am my party's transport spokesman. I have received many letters, although perhaps not quite as many as those received by some Conservative Members.

Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has also received letters of support for the metro from Liberals in Wolverhampton?

Mr. Fearn: I have had a letter from one councillor who, I believe, is not standing at the next election. However, I have received many other letters. Liberal Democrats in Walsall have been working hard on this issue.
Liberal Democrats are not opposed to light railway systems and I would support them wherever they may be proposed, although I shall speak out if they affect people's homes, as has been suggested tonight. Nor are Walsall Liberal Democrats opposed to a light railway. They support the Walsall-Wednesbury link, although they are opposed to the Walsall-Wolverhampton link, firstly on environmental grounds in certain areas. The planned route will decimate the Greenway between the M6 and St. Annes road. The elevated section between Granbourn road and Clarke's lane would apparently be lost altogether and the Willenhall memorial park, which has been mentioned, will be intruded upon. The park is a memorial to the dead of the first world war.
I also know that the rail will run just feet from the back doors of residents in Belinda close and that 2,000 signatures in opposition to the route have been presented. I know that the Bill's promoter said that 15 per cent. object to the Bill, but what I do not know is, 15 per cent. of what figure? The involvement of 2,000 residents sounds a great number to me, and they should be listened to.
There is already a confused road network in the area, and I believe that the chosen route will create chaos in that network with its eight level crossings.
For the metro to be successful, it should be street-running for the majority of its length. Perhaps comment will be made on that aspect of light rail—should it or should it not be street-running? The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and four other persons walked the

route, and I can tell the House that the majority of it has little to do with street running. It is a quiet walk and there are few houses.
Have options been considered closely? What are the objections to re-establishing the heavy rail link between Walsall and Wolverhampton by extending the Shrewsbury sprinter service through to Walsall? it is obvious that wide-ranging consultation has not taken place, despite what has been said. More information must be made available, and the residents who will be affected by the route are calling for more consultation. The environment and the people will suffer unless firm alterations to the routes are agreed with all those concerned.
Although in principle I agree with the light railway, I cannot support the Bill——

Mr. George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn: —unless alterations are made in the planning stage. I tell those who sought to intervene that I have finished.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I refrained from seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until those hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest had made their "constituency" speeches. In principle—like every other hon. Member, I believe—I am in favour of a more modern transport system for the urban areas. Whatever our political differences across the Floor of the House or within our parties, I do not believe that anyone can be satisfied with the present situation or with the present plans for solving the problems that face us. The Government's solution is to build more roads for more cars. It is barmy. There is no long-term future in such a proposal. The world will run out of rubber before we arrive at a solution.
It is clear from the proposals that have been produced by the transport authority that another route into Birmingham from Sutton Coldfield, which can only pass through my constituency, is a prime candidate when it comes to improving the transport system. It would be a money spinner: there is no question about that. The route from another area of Sutton Coldfield will be electrified through to Erdington. The other route from Sutton Coldfield will have to come through my constituency and through the Kingstanding area. I do not have any details, and I am not arguing for one proposal or another. I have an interest, however, and so do my constituents, in the conduct of organising Bills and in the routes that are set out in legislation. What I have heard so far about the route proposed in the Bill I do not like.
Like many other hon. Members, especially those who represent Birmingham constituencies, I have been on the receiving end over the past six months or more of many letters and petitions from people who are not my constituents. In the normal course of events, one passes this correspondence to the local Member, and in all cases I have passed it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Many of the letters were personal, not photocopied.
Many people made a plea—I considered it to be a reasonable one—that I should go to the Bromford estate. I was asked to listen to the residents about the future of the estate. When I was no more than seven or eight years old,


I remember being taken to the area for a day out when it was the Birmingham race course. I do not think that I have been on the land since those days.
It was suggested that it was no good going to the Bromford estate on a Sunday afternoon. Accordingly, I visited it at 7.30 am on Friday. I met representatives of the residents' association, having first consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill because the estate is in his constituency. I use the motorway every week. I also use Collector road. That is because using the two routes varies my drive out of Birmingham to the M I. I am aware of Collector road. I have travelled the M6 ever since it has opened and used the Bromford viaduct. However, I have never before been to the Bromford estate underneath it.
I was appalled. There is an elevated section of the motorway and there is the railay line. The quietest thing there is the canal—another method of transport—underneath the motorway. There are aircraft flying overhead. Nobody thought to bury the power lines. Subject to weather conditions, these make no noise, but they are an eyesore. The visual amenity for the residents of the estate is zero. As well as the pylons, the railway and the motorway, there are the factory sites for Dunlop and its associated factories, which can be seen through the pillars holding up the motorway.
Nobody offered to screen the motorway. Trees have been planted, but they are not mature. The green lung—this is a misuse of the phrase—running along the motorway is the only bit of green on that part of the Bromford estate. It is used not just for football pitches, walking the dogs and so on, but for having parties and picnics in the summer. The idea of picnicking under a pylon near the M6 with a railway running alongside beggars belief, but that is the only bit of green for the residents. Someone has decided that this bit of green is the ideal route for the metro line. I have walked from one end of the estate to the other.

Mr. Turner: If all these serious environmental matters are of such relevance, why is it that Birmingham city council, at an earlier stage, did not take these points on board? The route has been set by a Labour-controlled city council.

Mr. Rooker: For the same reason why, in the past, various public authorities erected power lines and the motorways while ignoring the needs of local people. It is as simple as that. The decision has been taken, but the residents do not agree with it. I have heard from both sides of the House the argument that this is a point of detail, a Committee point, to be dealt with upstairs. That is the answer to most issues when one is discussing the principle, but I have also heard that the right of people to be heard upstairs will be taken away because they are opposed by the very people who are promoting the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole issue has blown by the intervention from the hon. Member for——

Mr. Bevan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 28.

Division No. 102]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Arbuthnot, James
Knowles, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knox, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lamond, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lilley, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
McFall, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bidwell, Sydney
Maxton, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Meale, Alan


Boyes, Roland
Michael, Alun


Bright, Graham
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Budgen, Nicholas
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mudd, David


Canavan, Dennis
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholls, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Norris, Steve


Clelland, David
Page, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pawsey, James


Corbett, Robin
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Redwood, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rhodes James, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Riddick, Graham


Durant, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Fallon, Michael
Snape, Peter


Fearn, Ronald
Speller, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Stern, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Fookes, Dame Janet
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Freeman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Fry, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Fyfe, Maria
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


George, Bruce
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Thorne, Neil


Golding, Mrs Llin
Thurnham, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Trippier, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hanley, Jeremy
Wareing, Robert N.


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Warren, Kenneth


Harris, David
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Haselhurst, Alan
Watts, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jack, Michael
Mr. Roger King and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)



Knight, Greg (Derby North)





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buchan, Norman
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Mills, Iain


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cox, Tom
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Rooker, Jeff


Eastham, Ken
Short, Clare


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wigley, Dafydd






Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Martin Redmond and Mr. George J. Buckley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 17.

Division No. 103]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Flynn, Paul


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buchan, Norman
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Canavan, Dennis
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clelland, David
Haynes, Frank


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Corbert, Robin
Hunter, Andrew


Cox, Tom
Jack, Michael


Dixon, Don
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Eadie, Alexander
Lamond, James





Lawrence, Ivan
Snape, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stevens, Lewis


McFall, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Maxton, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meale, Alan
Thorne, Neil


Michael, Alun
Thurnham, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Nicholls, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pawsey, James
Winnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Roger King and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mills, Iain


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nellist, Dave


Clay, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Short, Clare


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Wigley, Dafydd


Fearn, Ronald



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. George J. Buckley and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Janner, Greville

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations t990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
The regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase by 8 per cent. the compensation paid under the Act to those who satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after 1 April 1990.
The 1979 Act provides for lump-sum payments to sufferers, or to their dependants, if the sufferer has died of dust-related diseases but no former employer remains in business against whom a claim for damages might be made.
The reason why compensation is provided in that way is because of the length of time that it takes for the disease to develop and for its symptoms to become apparent. Many years later, the sufferer may discover that he or she has the disease, often long after leaving the employment that caused or contributed to the development of the disease, by which time the employer may have gone out of business.
The Act did not provide for amounts of payment or for automatic uprating, but the Government have undertaken to Parliament to review the amounts payable each year.
The original payment regulations in 1980 set out a scale of payments related to age and degree of disability, as assessed by medical experts. Since 1980, several increases have been made, always with the aim of keeping the payments in line with the value of money. Last year, Parliament approved an increase of 8 per cent. from April. The proposed increase this year again is 8 per cent. to take account of inflation since then.
The Government do all they can to administer the Act sympathetically. We recognise that each case is an individual tragedy and we are as generous as we feel we can be. It has never been the Act's purpose, however, to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts against an employer, and my officials must be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be made.
Since the Act came into force in 1980, almost 5,000 people have made successful claims. Eighty-two per cent. of all claims to date were made in the first year of the scheme, but it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by the Department. The total cost to date has been £28·6 million. So far in the current financial year, 103 payments have been made, amounting to £694,000.
Most of those payments have been to sufferers, or to their dependants, in industries or occupations that involved contact with asbestos. They reflect the poor conditions in some workplaces a generation or more ago. The dangers of asbestos are now well recognised, and extensive legislation prevents much exposure today.
It is clearly right to maintain the value of compensation paid to those disabled by those diseases. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: As the Under-Secretary said, the regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979—one of the last Acts passed by the last Labour Government, in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, played a large part. The Labour party is entitled to be proud of that Act.
The regulations provide compensation for an illness that is horrendous not only for sufferers but for their families. A number of my hon. Friends who are involved in the mining industry are in the Chamber. British Coal has a separate scheme, but my hon. Friends can bear witness to the cruel way in which pneumoconiosis and similar conditions affect sufferers.
The original legislation was forced through by the Labour Government but, to be fair, it was also introduced at the behest of a number of Members from north Wales who were worried about the damage done to people working in slate quarries. In recent years, the regulations have been especially important to those involved in the asbestos industry.
The Minister said that conditions were unacceptable a generation ago. For a short time, I worked for an asbestos company in Manchester in the late 1960s. I am not sure whether that is a generation ago. I had my 40th birthday a little over a week ago, and people like me will be the potential victims of asbestosis and cancers for the rest of our lives—I include people younger than me, who continued to work in the industry until the plant closed. The conditions then and for some years later were atrocious. In the asbestos industry, as in other industries such as mining and quarrying, the management were fully aware of the dangers to the work force but oblivious to them in that they were prepared to allow people to continue to work.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That was known as the permissive '60s.

Mr. Lloyd: Indeed. They were permissive for management but intolerable for workers.
Because I worked in the industry, I can say with certainty that most of the people who worked for an employer such as Turner Brothers in Manchester were unaware of the dangers. I even remember when a room the size of this Chamber was full of clouds of asbestos dust when the extractor fans failed to function. That was not one off; it was a regular part of working practice in such factories only a little over 20 years ago.
The Minister said that the numbers were decreasing, and every hon. Member will welcome that. It would be wrong—no one would impute these words to the Minister—to say that somehow this phenomenon will disappear.
The Opposition welcome the fact that this year's uprating is marginally ahead of inflation.

Mr. Skinner: A teeny-weeny bit.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend said, it is a teeny-weeny bit.
I hope that the Minister will agree with us. He said that 103 awards were made last year and that the total value was less than £650,000. One needs only simple mathematics to work out that the regulations, which provide a top award of a little under £42,000 for a person under 38 with 100 per cent. disability, do not provide for


the reality of these conditions. For most people, symptoms appear slowly and progressively after many years of exposure to dust. The typical award of £7,000 is available to people who are well into their 50s or 60s, or are sometimes even older. The idea that this is a particularly generous compensation system does not accord with the facts.
The Minister said that the scheme was not designed to replace a civil claim against a previous employer. If an employer were found to be negligent in respect of a former employee or an existing employee who had become a victim of one of these dust-related diseases, the award would inevitably be higher than the amounts set out under these regulations.
It must be pointed out that the levels of compensation simply do not equate with the human suffering of the victims of these conditions. The £41,000 maximum is not typical. The typical award is not even the £18,996 that goes to a dependant of someone who has died. The typical award is the £7,000, or thereabouts.
One part of these regulations says that the level of compensation relates to the degree of disability assessed within 12 months of the disability being discovered. By its very nature, this is a progressive condition, and most people are assessed at a level well below that of which they will eventually become victims. Someone whose disability is assessed at 10 per cent. or less within 12 months of the condition being discovered will have his compensation based on that figure, even though he may eventually suffer disability of 100 per cent.
I should like the Minister to look at, and perhaps later comment on, the scheme run by the National Union of Mineworkers, which was negotiated with British Coal. We should do well if the people who will figure under the regulations that we are debating could benefit from two of the features of that miners' scheme. Those in the coal industry are entitled to the same type of lump sum, but there are two other features.
First, there is a reduced earnings allowance whereby someone forced to accept a job at a lower rate of pay is compensated for the difference. But perhaps the most important aspect of the British Coal scheme is that it recognises that these are progressive conditions, that, with continued exposure, the victims of dust-related diseases will suffer progressively. Even if an initial compensation assessment is low, a later assessment may be much higher. It is important that compensation be related not to the initial but to the final level of disability. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and comment on the possibility of extending those two very sensible practices to people claiming these awards.
There is another point that I hope the hon. Gentleman will pick up. It concerns people in coal mining as well as people who might benefit from extension of the reduced-earnings allowances principle to this compensation system. There is concern among miners in particular that, under social security legislation, the reduced earnings allowance will be phased out for new claimants.
Anybody faced with that situation would have an economic motive not to claim compensation under any scheme but to stay at a higher-paid job even if, by so doing, he would almost certainly guarantee that his condition would become not just progressively worse—that would

be happening anyway—but progressively worse at an increasing rate. Sadly, we are building into schemes provisions that give people a financial incentive to do further damage to themselves.
It would be unreasonable to do anything but welcome this uprating at the rate of inflation, or thereabouts. However, there are serious doubts as to whether the scheme provides for the levels of compensation that we should like. It is not a costly scheme. Relatively few people benefit from it. We have heard that last year it cost a little over £600,000, and that in the previous year the cost was a little less than £500,000. Those sums are relatively modest compared with the suffering of those involved.
I urge the Minister carefully to consider the points that I have raised about progression and the operation of a system of reduced earnings allowances. If we can hope for such a system and for compensation that is slightly more realistic in terms of what a civil court might decide, we can say that we have begun to stablish a framework for a compensation scheme that recognises the suffering that people have undergone. We must remember that they have suffered because the type of work in which they were involved guaranteed—although they did not know it at the time—that in later years they would become the victims of crippling and cruel conditions such as pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement of the uprating and intervene briefly to ask for clarification of the working of the regulations in the light of the changes in the companies legislation that took effect at the end of last year.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that receipt of money under the scheme does not prevent the claimant from seeking compensation from a former employer who may have gone into liquidation? I understand that the changes in the companies legislation have allowed claims to be made in respect of a period of 20 years, rather than just two years, prior to the date of liquidation of the company.
My hon. Friend may be aware of the case of my constituent, Mrs. Doris Bradley, of Breightmet in Bolton, who pursued the Eagle Star insurance company through the courts to the House of Lords, albeit unsuccessfully. She had contracted byssinosis from employment in Dart mill in Bolton. Her employment ceased in 1970. In 1980, she received compensation under the scheme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the payment that she received then should not prevent her, or others in her position, from seeking compensation from either the insurance company or the employers, even though those firms may have gone into liquidation?

Mr. James Lamond: I, too, welcome the uprating of the lump sum compensation and the opportunity to debate the regulations on the Floor of the House.
I should like to pursue one or two questions concerning the effect of the regulations on those who suffer from byssinosis. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who has just vacated the Chair, will know—that the "etc." in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 covered byssinosis as


well as a number of other industrial diseases. It was particularly welcome in my constituency of Oldham, East, where there were many textile workers who had worked in the spinning section of the textile industry, in premises that were filled with cotton dust. Most of those workers were women, and quite a number received lump sum compensation following the passing of the Act.
I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), that we should remember that that Act was the final Act of the Labour Government, although the regulations were brought in later by the Conservative Government, and I must say that they were very welcome. Almost 2,000 people in the Oldham area received an average of about £7,000.
The provision that caused considerable problems to my constituents stated that they should not receive compensation if any employer for whom they had worked was still in business. By the nature of the problem in Oldham—the disease was in the spinning industry and it was mostly women who were affected—most of the sufferers had worked for several employers in their working lives. They would leave one mill to have a child; they would be off work for perhaps two or three years and then they would start work again—very likely in another mill. I have met many constituents who have worked for six, seven or even more employers during their working lives. If any of those employers are still in business, those workers are debarred from claiming lump sum compensation.
I know that the Minister has applied the regulations as generously as he felt he could without going against the previous regulations that were passed by the House. Short periods of employment with employers who are still in business have been disregarded for the purposes of claiming compensation. However, nearly 300 women and some men in my constituency still cannot receive lump sum compensation.
I know that those people can take their former employers to court to try to obtain compensation. However, the women to whom I am referring are retired and some of them are quite elderly. It costs money to institute proceedings. They must put down some money to begin with, as no lawyer will take on a case without a down

payment to cover his services. Money will also be required for a counsel's opinion and for medical examinations. Many of those elderly women cannot face the ordeal of going to court, so they do not pursue their cases.
Curious though it may seem in this day and age, many of those women have some attachment to the family firm for which they once worked. We must remember that in Oldham and the surrounding area there were about 350 mills operated by some 250 companies. In other words, most of the companies had only one mill and were family firms. That is still the case, to a certain extent, in what remains of the textile industry.
When I advised women of their rights to go to court, they told me that they did not want to take the firm to court because they did not want the firm's owners, who in many cases they knew by name, to think, after all the work that they had done for them, that they blamed them and. expected to get money from them. That is not a logical attitude, but I have come across it several times in my constituency. Will the Minister consider that, think the matter over and reconsider the regulations to see whether. he can apply them more generously or find a way of amending them?
I am not making a new plea. I have often made it before. I made it when the original 1979 legislation was passing through the House and I made it again when the regulations were before the House. I made it when the statutory instrument was debated, not on the Floor of the House but in Committee. I usually received a sympathetic hearing and a recognition of the practical difficulties facing the elderly people who are still waiting for compensation.
Those women may have spent three or four years with one firm, and that firm, of five or six, may have remained in business. They cannot understand why that short period should debar them from compensation, while that firm may quite reasonably deny that it is likely that that person contracted byssinosis only during the short period that she worked at the company, at the end of her working life.
Will the Minister contemplate amending the regulations to assist those who worked in the textile industry, who I believe have a particular reason to look for sympathy?

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this short debate. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were involved in the parentage of the legislation back in the 1970s. I wish only that we had not needed the legislation then and, to the extent that there was a need, that the legislation had not been on the statute book years earlier because many people suffered from its absence.
I refer immediately to a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).
There have been problems of people working for short times in the slate quarries particularly in towns such as Blaenau Ffestiniog—where there are several, some of them small—some of which are still in existence, but most of which are now defunct. In a number of cases the Department has taken a reasonably elastic view. Perhaps the Minister should look for some guideline—if that entails amending the legislation so be it—to accept that if anyone worked for a company still in existence for less than a quarter or a fifth of his working life, the time working for that company should be disregarded and the person should not be debarred from compensation by virtue of the fact that, perhaps for four years out of 20, he or she worked for a company that still exists.
I am not sure of the experience in the cotton industry, but certainly in the slate quarrying industry the Transport and General Workers Union has done tremendous work representing people who have suffered pneumoconiosis and whose employers still exist. That union's legal department has done very well in bringing cases forward and in reaching settlements out of court to avoid the trauma and worry that some people suffer.

Mr. James Lamond: The Powerloom Carpet Weavers and Textile Weavers Union and the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have also played their part in obtaining compensation in the courts for my constituents.

Mr. Wigley: That work is valued. Unions look after people who have long since ceased to work because of their health conditions.
The other possibility that is well worth looking at—I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton will also consider it—is to advise constituents that there should be no odium in bringing a case against a small company. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about attachment to small companies, but in most circumstances the insurance company will have to pay. Therefore, it is often possible to come to some agreement without polarisation and the hostility that might otherwise be implicit.
Obviously, we welcome any uprating, and 8 per cent. is certainly to be welcomed as far as it goes. In 1979, the original figure at the bottom of the scale was £700. It has doubled since then, but it is fair also to say that the costs of disability have increased tremendously. The information that has been presented to the House in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies and from other sources has highlighted the much greater cost of disability to a person and his or her family than was recognised 10 years ago. We must look at a more generous scale of compensation, particularly for younger people who suffer

a large degree of disability early in life and may have to live with the cost implications of disability for many years. The Government might want to consider that matter.
I note the point about the need for a mid-term review for people who have been acknowledged as suffering from pneumoconiosis, almost inevitably at a low percentage. How many people in different industries have been acknowledged initially at 10 per cent. but have seen their disability rapidly escalate to 100 per cent.? Compensation is based on the 10 per cent. figure. Perhaps there could be a structure whereby a person is reviewed every five years. If the percentage disability increases during those five years, it would put him or her on a substantially higher level of compensation than would have been the case five years earlier. The amount of compensation payable could be uprated.
I realise that the Government would not want to do that annually, but for those who have suffered disability young in life and have to live with it, that may be a way of recognising, as the Labour Government at the time said and as the Conservative Government accepted when they introduced the regulations, that the scales represent a degree of rough justice. Perhaps such a review would overcome that rough justice.
Another point made by hon. Members in the past, which needs to be repeated, is the definition of the diseases included as industrial diseases for these purposes. We all know of cases of people whose doctors have stated that they are suffering from chronic bronchitis or emphysema and not from diseases that are accepted for the purposes of the legislation. I have dealt with such a case in the past few weeks that of Mr. Evie Davis from Rhostryfan, the village next to mine. Year after year he has gone back to the board to have his case reviewed. The board has stated that he has a little dust which does not amount to pneumoconiosis. His specialist is convinced that he is suffering pneumoconiosis. No doubt next year he will have to go back again and it will be that much more of a struggle to go, as his health suffers. We know of hundreds of such cases.
There must be a review of the definition. There should be greater flexibility to include people who have worked in industries that are identified as creating the dust and who have conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, which are associated with the listed diseases.
Another reason why there may be room to be a little more generous to people affected by the legislation is that, during the past year, the widow's industrial death pension has been ended. I realise that it was only 55p a week on top of the original pension, but it is yet another small element of benefit that has been taken away. Perhaps through the scheme additional compensation could be made for a widow's loss.
Many people who have suffered a loss of health have received probably the largest sum of money that they have ever had or are likely to have. If they have looked after that money, they may be in danger of losing out on some other benefits. If people received a sum of perhaps £10,000 or £12,000 and have looked after it, they may still have over £8,000. They stand in danger of losing community charge or poll tax rebates or housing benefit that they might otherwise have had. That is regrettable because many such people, who face years of disability, look after their capital and we should encourage them to do that.
We must also consider the community care legislation that is soon to be introduced. If there is a move towards


privatisation of services and payment for services, will people who have received a lump sum have to pay for services that they previously had and which are certainly necessary if they are to remain living in the community?
Safety standards in places of work must remain high. I have an asbestos factory as well as old slate quarries in my constituency, and I am very much aware of the need for safety at work. The company in my constituency does its best to maintain standards. It is something that all Governments must be aware of. There should be no skimping on inspection or cutting of corners to save costs at the expense of health standards. We must make sure that industries employing people now will not cause the suffering that we have seen in other industries, the consequences of which we are debating tonight.
In welcoming the order to uprate, I hope that there may be room for more flexibility in the directions that I mentioned and that more benefit can be given to people who have suffered so much because of their work.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I join my hon. Friends and Conservative Members in welcoming the orders. I also join them in their expressions of doubt about the efficacy of the working of the scheme.
I remember when I was a relatively small boy or young man, about 30 or 40 years ago, I read a novel, I think by A. J. Cronin, about the adventures of a doctor who came up from south Wales to do some research into pneumoconiosis in the coal mining industry. The scandals of the matters that prevented him from bringing into law the scientific discoveries that he made in an institute in London aroused my ire. I was surprised, and I am still surprised and disturbed, by the extent to which scientific analysis and evidence is being ignored. That does not redound to the credit of any Government of any party, and certainly not to an Administration in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I view with reserve the Minister's statement that the Government regard the working of these schemes with some sympathy.
I wish to raise one or two matters relating to the operation of the scheme where improvements can be made. I hope that, when the regulations next come before the House, their scope will be wider than those that we are considering. These matters have been brought to my attention by that excellent organisation, the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, and by the redoubtable lady who runs it, Mrs. Nancy Tait.
Why, in this day and age, is the ex-civil servant widow of a General Post Office engineer to the forefront on these matters? I had hoped that, along with the unions, other agencies in our democracy would have fulfilled that function. However, I am pleased to present some of the features to which that lady and her colleagues in that excellent organisation have drawn my attention.
The first is the applicability of the scheme. I believe that the case of a widow whose husband was employed in Northern Ireland has been drawn to the Minister's attention, probably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I understand that the scope of the provisions may not be as wide in that part of the United Kingdom as in the rest. I may be mistaken in that respect, but I think that that is so. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what may be an anomaly.
The asbestosis scourge is at its greatest in east London, around the Thames. I refer to men who, in the past, worked as laggers, boilermakers or boiler workers in power stations and ships, and in insulation work, which still goes on. East London is now suffering a time lag of 50 years or less in these matters.
As I understand it, the scheme does not extend to those who have not been directly employed in the area:3 concerned. It relates only to those who have been employed—in firms that have now gone out of existence—but does not extend to their families. I understand that Leeds city council has done a study into this and that there is now plenty of proof that some families of persons so employed are suffering the effects of asbestos fibres and should therefore be eligible for some compensation.
Even if the Minister cannot give us an assurance on that tonight, I hope that he will at least say that he will have a look at the anomaly. I hope that the number of cases in that classification is relatively low, but surely that makes the moral responsibility all the greater. Where proof can be found, surely there should be compensation.
I understand that out-of-court settlements have been made, but only because of recourse to the threat to go to court. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked whether such threats to go to court should have to be used at all. I understand that: the National Dock Labour Board and one or two firms have come to arrangements with employees' families. I hope that that will not be necessary in future and that they can be brought into the scheme.
I understand that, when such cases occur and there are coroner's inquests, the coroner sometimes finds that the cause of death was natural causes. I question whether that is right. If there is scientific evidence that workers' families have died through ingesting such fibres in their lungs, can the cause of death be natural? Asbestos does not appear naturally in the atmosphere, especially if it is brought in on other people's clothes. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point in relation to the scope of the regulations.
I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the questionable way in which some of the panels operate. About 12 years ago, I had the pleasure of introducing a private Member's Bill, which happily later became an Act—the Industrial Diseases (Notification) Act 1981. It was the Archie Morton memorial Bill. Archie came to my surgery about 12 years ago. He told me that he was dying, that he had obtained some compensation from an out-of-court settlement with the assistance of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and that he would devote that money and the rest of his life to fighting for people who were not so fortunate as he. When he died, a post mortem showed that he was justified in going to the panel, which turned him down time after time.
Last Saturday, a Mr. Smith—that is not his real name—came to see me, by chance before this debate. I do not know whether it is a record—case brought up on Saturday, raised in the House on Monday. It was a coincidence that he saw me so shortly before the debate. There are many men in Mr. Smith's position in east London. He said, "Mr Spearing, I have been coughing blood since January and my GP says that I must go to the panel." He named a firm that is well known in the area, for which he had worked at one time and which no longer exists.
I have talked about the past and the scandals that took place when I was a boy, which I hoped then would never


recur. With that in mind, I am not too happy about the way in which the panels operate. As I understand it, the balance of probability is against the applicant. I shall read to the House some of the conclusions reached by the organisation to which I referred earlier, the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases. I shall start where the society quotes a quote:
'Asbestos bodies are only formed from asbestos fibres over 12 micron, but shorter fibres may cause fibrosis, so fibrosis caused by these shorter fibres is unrecognisable histologically as asbestosis'. (Whitwell: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 71, Dec: 1978, p. 919–922).
However, DHSS Special Medical Boards ignore these opinions. SPAID's case work suggests that it is now more difficult to obtain DHSS industrial disablement benefit for lung cancer affecting someone who has worked with asbestos, since it was prescribed for benefit as PD D8.
Before 1985, the connection was often accepted by DHSS provided there were even a few asbestos bodies and their pathologists would search for minimal fibrosis.
Now, DHSS Special Medical Boards give 'scanty asbestos bodies and minimal fibrosis' as grounds for concluding that a lung cancer is not connected with exposure to asbestos. Not only do they refuse to award DHSS industrial benefit, they also frequently advise Coroners that a death should not be recorded as an Industrial Disease. They are required by DHSS regulations to decide applications 'on the balance of probabilities'. They rarely do so. Instead they often offer very flimsy evidence when asked to justify their decision to refuse a claim.
We find that, when the evidence is argued in either a Civil or a Coroner's Court, the view that lung cancer must be accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening is recognised as being out of date and not in line with modern thinking.
Unfortunately, the DHSS opinion is accepted all to often, without question and, as a result, many are quite unjustly, denied benefits or an opportunity of even claiming compensation.
I have a shorter quotation from a registered medical practitioner, whom I had better not name. Here is the opinion of a person well experienced in these matters:
In 1986, after a considerable amount of evidence had been produced by research workers, the DHSS agreed to accept bilateral diffuse pleural thickening as a compensatible disease. However, the interpretation of the criteria has been so stringent that even in many obviously disabled men no compensation has been offered.
There is growing concern and frustration among chest physicians, particularly in those areas where a great deal of a asbestos-related disease occurs, that the DHSS Medical Boards are ignoring much of the evidence produced by medical workers in the field of asbestos-related disease. Even when there is irrefutable evidence of disease they are suppressing facts in individual cases to the extent that the men referred are losing confidence in their referring physicians.
They say, "The doctor says I've got it, the specialist says I've got it, the London hospital says I've got it, but the panel says I haven't." That is the sort of message that I get at my advice surgery. The practitioner continues:
The members of the Boards insist that their criteria must be met exactly in every case and they have no recourse to the legal 'balance of probability' which is more often than not the fairest way to deal with these problems. I understand that it is likely that the death benefit for the industrial disease of asbestosis is likely to be discontinued next year and if this is so there is even more likelihood that sufferers and their dependents will be deprived of benefit as fewer will be referred to the Coroner for Inquest.
I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to reply in detail to these opinions and serious prima facie allegations. I would not expect him to do so, but I would expect him seriously to take them up. When Mr. Smith

comes to see me next, after he has been before the panel, I do not want him to say, "Mr. Spearing, having worked for that firm 15 years ago, I'm spitting blood, but the panel has turned me down." If he does, and those accusations are still on the table, we shall be doing a grave injustice to some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members all over this United Kingdom.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On Friday, we were trying to reach a Bill that would have assisted victims of another condition. It would be wrong not to mention the fact that nuclear test victims, and the widows of those who have died were not allowed that assistance on Friday. They could have been here listening to this debate in the knowledge that the Bill to provide them with compensation and relief was on the way into Committee. This may not concern the Minister's Department, but I hope that he passes on to his colleagues in the Government the message that we believe that the Bill which was blocked last Friday by Tory Back Benchers should be given another chance and swiftly passed.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has blocked Bills.

Mr. Skinner: I have taken part in such matters only to stop queue jumping, and that is completely different. I have never been in on a Friday to do anything other than that.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has blocked Bills.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is applauding the way that Tory Members stopped the Bill to help nuclear test veterans. Now we know. He is a Government Whip, justifying the tactics used by his hon. Friends to stop the Bill going through. These people fought for their country and suffered out in the Pacific, but he is applauding the actions of those Tory Members who stopped the Bill. Although the uprating is to be supported, such provisions should be extended to other victims.
Is the Minister satisfied that all the asbestos has been removed from the Houses of Parliament? There have been reports that it is still being removed, and I should like him to check that. Thousands of people work here—not just Members of Parliament. I am not worried about them. We cannot call that work. We are talking about real workers, the people who have to clock on and clock off.
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who said that £41,000 is not really a lot of money, and I fully agree with him. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said the same. We can get carried away with figures if we are not careful. Compare that £41,000 with the amount of money that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has just got for working for a bank for two days—£200,000. The Government talk as though a £41,000 lump sum is a lot of money. There is no doubt that when that sum is taken into account the miners will have to pay the full poll tax, and all the other so-called "means-tested" benefits will also be affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned the reduced earnings allowance, and I think that it is important that we take that on board—not that the reduced earnings allowance is as good as a special hardship allowance. Many of our friends in the mining industry have suffered because of the change from the


special hardship to the reduced earnings allowance, and I want the Minister to give an assurance that he will consider bringing those benefits into the same category.
The case of people who fall below the 10 per cent. limit should also be considered. The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke about the 10 per cent. minimum; it is one of the problems we have come up against with pneumoconiosis. Although this is a separate measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, to a large extent it was built upon the pneumoconiosis settlement made earlier under a Labour Government. A hell of a lot of people are excluded because the pneumoconiosis medical panel says that they fall below 10 per cent. and cannot get anything, and for years they do not get anything. I would like that 10 per cent. limit to be reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also referred to the problem, and mentioned the case of Arthur Morton and all the rest. It is easy for a doctor who is far away from the subject, and a member of a panel—he is paid a tidy sum to sit on that panel—to say, "Sorry—9 per cent.," or 8 per cent. or whatever. He may say, "We agree that you have dust, but you do not have enough." It is high time that we went below 10 per cent.—it has been around for too long. We should recommend that payments are made for people who have a level below that figure and that the panel's recommendations are seriously reviewed.
Hon. Members have referred to emphysema and other causes of chest complaints—I think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned it; he played a significant part in getting the Act passed. Had the then Government extended the Act to somewhere in Northern Ireland, we might still be in office. Who knows?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned a doctor's report from south Wales. That doctor was writing—a few years ago—about coal dust, and the research that was done on opencast mining. No Government have accepted that someone can get payments for working in opencast coal mines. People who have worked in slate quarries can get payments, but there has been no case in which an opencast coal worker has come under the legislation. Why? I suppose they argue that, by and large, opencast mines are worked for only a few months or a couple of years, although there are cases where they have lasted longer.
I want an investigation into opencast workings, with a view to workers affected in that industry being brought under the legislation because we now have hundreds, possibly thousands, of opencast sites in Britain. My guess is that there have been very few cases—if any—of opencast workers claiming benefit under this order, or the other one, but my guess is that a hell of a lot of cases could come under it.
I should like the Minister to consider the evidence on opencast mining. I am trying to think of the name of the doctor in south Wales who produced it; we have used it in opencast inquiries. I also think that he should consider reducing the 10 per cent. criterion to 5 per cent., so that more people are included. That is no big deal when the top whack is £41,000. Finally, I ask him to check on this building to see whether there is still an asbestos problem.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Tonight the Minister is hearing the voices of experience. He should not look at me in that way; the voices of experience are crossing the Chamber to make him understand exactly how we feel.
Nevertheless, we welcome what the Minister has said. The increase is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be made annually in future. Inflation is rocketing under the present Government, and is likely to continue to do so. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the young Whip— the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)—to gawp from his seat; this is experience talking. Conservative Members talk about Arthur Scargill, but if they had worked in the pits years ago they would not have a smile on their face. Arthur Scargill did a first-class job as a full-time official in Yorkshire, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he was president of the Derbyshire branch of the NUM.

Mr. Fallon: Speak up for Libya.

Mr. Haynes: I do not know why Conservative Members keep on talking about Libya and Gaddafi and Scargill; we are talking about pneumoconiosis tonight. I am a bit surprised at their behaviour. That little lad, the hon. Member for Darlington, ought to be sent for by her at No. 10 and given a ticking off: Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are supposed to keep their mouths shut in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover knows what he is talking about: he did a first-class job as president of the Derbyshire miners. He was a working president. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the case that he put. We have yet to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has to say, but no doubt we shall find it an education. My hon. Friend has worked both as a miner and on the management side, so he really knows the subject from A to Z—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has been chairing the Employment Bill Committee, and who has also worked on both sides of the industry. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).
The National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers has done a first-class job in representing its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has had to speak on something new to him, as it came up only in his Saturday surgery. Nor do I wish to leave out my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He has learnt a lot since he became a Member of Parliament. That was obvious when he presented his case at the Dispatch Box. He will do the same tomorrow in the Standing Committee on the Employment Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to the doctor, the consultant and the panel. I am sick to death of the general practitioner telling the patient that because he has pneumoconiosis he will send him to a consultant at the district general hospital. The consultant agrees with the doctor, so the patient goes before the panel. Its members get a nice old rake-off for doing the job. They decide that the extent of the disease is below 10 per cent. That must be looked into, because after that patient's case has been turned down he may die within six months. That has happened many times. The post mortem examination then reveals that the extent of the disease can be as high as 50 or 60 per cent.
The so-called specialists on the panel are not doing their job properly. They want their backsides kicking. I am waiting for the Minister to get up and say that he will do the kicking. Some of these people are not getting a fair deal. I accept that some of them are, but the others are not getting what they are entitled to. They have to die before people find out that they were entitled to what they had asked for.

Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend's point is also correct in the case of byssinosis victims. A general practitioner diagnoses byssinosis; the consultant does the same; the panel turns down the victim; he dies; the post mortem is byssinosis. I wonder whether the panel believes that it must turn down a certain percentage of cases, just to show that it is doing its job. However, it ought to remember that before men and women come before it, they have had to persuade at least two medical practitioners—the consultant and their own doctor—that they are suffering from byssinosis. People are not coming in off the street, hoping to be diagnosed as having byssinosis. They have to go through certain procedures before they come before the panel. Almost 100 per cent. of the people who go before the panel must have the disease that they claim to suffer from.

Mr. Haynes: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. There is a flipping scandal here and it has got to be looked into. People are not being treated properly. All that is related to what I keep telling the Minister about pit inspectors. There are not enough of them to see that the job is being done properly underground.The example I give is that of working in a heading where there is a fan. As the heading advances, they use air bagging to keep up the work at the front. When the fan breaks down, or if it does not work properly, the miners gobble dust into their insides.
That is why they get pneumoconiosis. Inspectors are not on the job to see that it is being carried out properly. Those men should be withdrawn. As a works pit inspector, I should withdraw them. I made that clear to the Minister, and I am proud of it. A trade union official must look after the individuals he represents, otherwise he is not doing his job properly. I want the Minister to grab hold of that fact and to remember it when we are in Committee tomorrow.
I have made my points. I hope that the Minister will respond properly.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) left off, on opencasting. There is a report about a Dr. Thomas who has a practice in Glenheath. Dr. Thomas has been involved in an investigation of the high incidence of dust-related diseases, particularly among women and children. The investigation into Dr. Thomas's practice seems rather strange, particularly as it was instigated by the Secretary of State for Wales, when it was discovered that the practice was spending far too much according to the guidelines and compared with other practices in the area. That brings us back to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which does not take such matters into consideration.
The Ministry carried out an investigation of why the male population did not suffer from the dust-related diseases which affected the women and children in the area. It came across the startling fact that the men no longer worked in the area, so they spent between eight and 12 hours elsewhere, while the women and children spent the whole day in the area. The investigation concluded that they were being affected by airborne dust from opencast mining, and much investigation is still to be done.
The 8 per cent. uprating is in line with inflation this month, although that may not be the case next month, and it would be churlish of us not to welcome it. However, I wish to raise one or two points which may have been mentioned before.
The amount of compensation reduces according to the age of the claimant. The logic of that is that a younger person has longer to live and will experience more difficulties as he gets older. At the same time, the older the sufferer, the more looking after he needs. The person looking after him bears the brunt of it. I know that from first-hand experience, because my father died of pneumoconiosis. I saw him struggle from the time he was assessed—he ended up with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis—and I saw my mother looking after him. That trumatic experience affected the entire family.
It is necessary to look at the lower end of the scale. The older a person gets, the more looking after he needs and the more strain that puts on the carer, so more compensation should be paid. Although I see the logic in it, it is wrong to reduce compensation to such an extent lower down the scale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, at the top of the scale a person aged 37 with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis would receive £41,000 and that is peanuts. Therefore, it is necessary to look again at the scale and the amount of compensation awarded.
The Government are wrong to phase out the reduced earnings allowance. Many Opposition Members have had experience of men struggling to do a job that they were clearly incapable of doing, purely and simply because of their economic situation. They knew full well that, if they left the job, they would lose a lot of money. The reduced earnings allowance or the hardship allowance cushioned that effect, so that people could be encouraged to leave the work that they should not be doing and move into different work.
I looked at one of the old forms the other day; it referred to compensation for life. It said nothing about compensation being reduced when the claimant reached the age of 65 or being phased out. It was compensation for life. It was compensation while sufferers were working to make up their reduced earnings, and it was also compensation when they had finished working to make up the amount of money that they should have saved but could not save because they had to leave the job early. The Government are wrong to remove the reduced earnings allowance.
A valid argument against the 10 per cent. rule has been made. Sufferers who are diagnosed as having 8 per cent. pneumoconiosis and 20 per cent. emphysema are not paid compensation. Only after they have died and their lungs have been examined are the effects of emphysema seen. Compensation should be paid for emphysema and related diseases. Despite scientific studies, emphysema is not regarded as an industrial disease. The clear evidence is that it is an industrial disease. It should be recognised as such, and proper compensation should be paid.
Many miners suffering from pneumoconiosis have had to leave work. They cannot burn solid fuel in their homes. British Coal recognised that by paying them cash in lieu for alternative fuels. The Government take into account the money that a miner, his widow or his family receives and reduce his housing and welfare benefit accordingly. A test case was taken to a tribunal, which ruled against the Government. It said that the Government are wrong to take cash in lieu into account. The Government are likely to appeal. They should not be appealing; they should be considering how much money they owe those people. That money should be paid immediately, and retrospective payments should be considered.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to hon. Members for acknowledging that benefits have been uprated in line with inflation, as they have been almost every year since the Pneumoconiosis etc, (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 came into force.
I join the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker). who was responsible for bringing that Act to a successful conclusion. As I recall, he did so against the findings of the Pearson commission. One can speculate on the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman must have made in achieving that success, bearing in mind the commission's recommendation. That Act is operated in precisely the same way as under the last Labour Government. We argue across the Dispatch Box about other upratings, but we have no argument about this one.
The hon. Member for Stretford mentioned asbestos. He said that he and I are old enough to consider the working lives of a generation. We have learnt much about asbestos over the past 20 or 30 years. It was always realised that it was dangerous, but we continue to find out just how dangerous it was. There is a strict regime under the asbestos regulations of 1983 and 1985 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. Without being complacent, there is every reason to believe that we have achieved the right control.
Hon. Members referred to the amount of compensation that is payable. Uniquely, the compensation scheme does not depend on having to prove negligence. That is a useful aspect of the scheme. In introducing that legislation, the then Minister of State, Department of Employment acknowledged that it was very much in a class of its own. Negligence does not have to be proved. That is a significant advantage, which means that one is not subjected to the vagaries of litigation and having to prove a case. I make no criticism in saying that it is easy to relate cases in which massive amounts of compensation have been awarded, but there is a danger of trying to relate the sums awarded under this scheme to what might be awarded in litigation.
I accept that the sums involved are not massive. The point has been made in this debate and last year that mere money cannot begin to compensate for the misery, tragedy and horrific times that families face when a loved one dies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) agrees that this matter goes far beyond the issue of money. Having said that, I accept that ultimately we are simply talking about money, and it is right that we should consider the sums that can be awarded.
I was asked about the average compensation. It has been about £8,000 in the current year. The maximum could be as much as £41,849; the maximum for dependants would be rather lower, at £18,996. The sums are not derisory, although they are not massive. We are dealing with something that is much more basic than mere money, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) asked whether it would be possible, having obtained an amount under the Act, to proceed against a company that had been restored to life, albeit briefly, under the Companies Act 1989. According to my reading of the Act, there would be nothing to stop a claim being made against a company in that way, even if a sum had been obtained under the legislation. It is right to point out, however, that the converse is not true. If a judgment against a company has been obtained or a compromise has been reached in some way, that would preclude a claim under the Act. In a sense, that is a point of detail which is well known by those who understand the structure of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the possibility of a periodic review. Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Lamond), he said that, because disability can increase as one gets older, it should be taken into account in considering the low amounts that are now given to those at the lower end of the scale. I understand why the case was put in that way. However, if after the adjudication there were a periodic review, dependent on the person's health at any given time, the scheme would come to a complete stop. In civil litigation, it is a well-established principle. for obvious reasons, that, once a claim is settled, it stands, except in rare circumstances.
I accept the concern of the hon. Member for Caernarfon. When the scheme was devised, the intention was to weight the lower levels of disability to reflect that fact. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is an imprecise measure. I accept that it must be. The structure of the Act ensures that the lower ratings are weighted to take account of that.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) clearly has a personal acquaintance with a constituent who has experienced a number of these problems. I want to deal as explicitly as I can with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that he recognises a phrase used when civil servants brief Ministers on these occasions and which seems to satisfy them sometimes—"It is not my responsibility", but the responsibility of just about anyone else. The work of the boards on respiratory diseases is not the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, the whole House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman understands to be the findings of that research. I accept that he feels very strongly about the matter.
I give the hon. Gentleman, as well as other hon. Members, an undertaking that I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and draw his attention to this debate and, specifically, to the concern of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), at what—to put it at its lowest—they regard as the unsatisfactory circumstances in which a GP and a consultant make one diagnosis but the man on the board comes to a different view. As I do not want to mislead hon. Members, I have to say that I can pass no judgment on whether, in a particular case, the diagnosis of


the consultant and the GP should be weighed in the balance against the decision of the board and found wanting. None the less, if such information came to the notice of myself as a constituency Member of Parliament it would concern me. However, as I have said, I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend to draw to his attention the comments that have been made.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging words. The nub of the problem is that the boards are not always willing to publicise the scientific criteria that they use in evaluating any case, to ensure that it is seen as being in line with demonstrable scientific advance and discovery. Unless there is congruity in that respect, there will be cause for concern. Perhaps the Minister will point that fact out to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Nicholls: Clearly, boards should be up to date, but I cannot pass judgment on particular cases. However, I accept at once that that is what the hon. Gentleman's research has led him to conclude. I well understand his concern, and I shall certainly draw it—not just formally but quite specifically—to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I should like to make two points that may come as some reassurance to Opposition Members. Members have commented across the Floor on the working of the reduced earnings allowance. That is certainly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I am advised that it has no bearing whatsoever on the working of this Act, although I accept that these occasions can be useful for bringing in tangential matters. A number of hon. Members referred to the position when someone's disability is assessed at less than 10 per cent. or, for that matter, 14 per cent. The guidance issued by the Department on the working of the 1979 Act puts the question:
What do you do about claims to the DHSS?
The answer is:
We need to confirm that: your husband or wife got disablement benefit or disablement allowance because of the disease or that the only reason he or she did not is that the level of disability was below 14 per cent.
Again I am advised that, in relation to this Act, the mere fact that the level of disability was found to be lower than 10 per cent. does not preclude the making of a payment.

Mr. Wigley: Surely the Minister will accept that, in case after case, boards, having found a little dust, will not make a 10 per cent. finding if there is no pneumoconiosis. Such experience is very widespread.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech. As I said, I shall draw his comments in their entirety to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Having said what I am not responsible for, and passed it to others, I refer to a point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon made about a person who has had a number of employers, the proposition being that all of them would have to have gone out of business before a claim was made. I am advised that there is no hard-and-fast rule to that effect, but obviously the hon. Member has experience of this matter. The working of that part of the assessment is

the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and it is a matter that we shall certainly look at.
The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Caernarfon asked whether emphysema—and, for that matter, bronchitis—should be classified in the same way. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which advises the Secretary of State in these matters, reported in February 1988 that the link had not been made out conclusively enough for the diseases to be included in this category of disablement. The matter is kept under review, and this takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South about the need to ensure that boards are as fully up to date as they should be. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that the change that he seeks is around the corner, but the matter is certainly kept closely under review.
I hope that in this relatively short but comprehensive debate I have been able to satisfy the House about the motives underlying the uprating of 8 per cent. while also undertaking to ensure that specific matters are drawn to the attention of those responsible.

Mr. James Lamond: I am especially anxious about the case of someone who has one former employer still in business. Is the Minister saying that there is nothing hard and fast in the regulations and that he can re-examine the matter, perhaps with a view to disregarding short periods of employment with one employer who is still in existence or to ensuring that if a period of employment represents only a small proportion of a person's working life, it can be disregarded? Is he saying that he will consider that point?

Mr. Nicholls: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that, as I understand it, there is no scheme or tariff which says that, if not all the employers have gone out of business, one simply cannot claim under the Act. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that somewhere along the line a judgment of Solomon will have to be made about how many employers can be in existence and for how long.
I cannot pass any judgment about the matter this evening, but I am concerned at the hon. Gentleman's view—even allowing for what I have just said—that the regulations are being interpreted far too strictly or stringently. I do not have to draw that to the attention of anybody, other than my Department. Without passing judgment on it now, I shall certainly look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
This has been a short but useful debate, and I hope that I have been able to offer hon. Members some reassurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning Scotland

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

Orders of the Day — Health Rules (Products of Animal Origin)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9934/89 relating to health rules for products of animal origin; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any Council regulation resulting from this proposal contributes to effective and efficient hygiene controls throughout the Community.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Radio 2 (Broadcasting Frequencies)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Once upon a time, the BBC broadcast the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme. I wish to raise the subsequent fate of the Light Programme, which used to be broadcast on long wave, 1500 m and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come to the House tonight to answer this debate is, either too young to remember it, or—being a man of superior intellect—never chose to listen to it.
The BBC made some major changes when establishing Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Radio 2 finished up on two medium wavebands while Radio 4 was allocated the long waveband. In addition, all four channels broadcast on FM frequencies.
That is the situation that still prevails, but as the House will know, all is to be altered in the near future. This follows the Home Secretary's decision, announced on 19 January 1988, that two medium-wave frequencies should be reassigned from the BBC. The BBC's response is to confine its broadcasting, other than on FM, to 198 kHz for Radio 4 or its equivalent, and the existing medium-wave frequencies used by Radio 2 for a channel that will broadcast a new sport and educational programme. In addition, the present channels 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be allocated FM frequencies.
It is not the purpose of this debate to argue against the Government's handling of frequencies, since those decisions have now been made. However, I must observe that the Home Office department that deals with radio frequencies does not enjoy a high reputation with those who are knowledgeable in such highly technical matters. is generally recognised that this country came out very badly in the previous international conference dealing with the allocation of frequencies. I remember the grief of the Overseas Service of the BBC when 1300 m was up for grabs and it ended up in the hands of the Irish, who at the time had no great direct use for it. The second long-wave frequency that has been allocated to the United Kingdom is unusable for far too much of the day to be of practical use. However, once again, it is no use raking over the past.
My purpose tonight is to enter a special plea for those of us who, when getting up in the morning, driving into work, doing the household chores or as a background to routine jobs, like jolly music with cheerful presenters to accompany the task in hand.
About 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week. More than 1 million of them do not have wireless sets that can receive FM. Either they will be deprived of their favourite programmes or they will be involved in considerable expense, through no fault of their own, when the BBC makes that ill-advised change.
I must acknowledge that, at just over 50 years old, I think that I am about the average age for a Radio 2 listener—although, when it has so many listeners, that must be a fairly wide spectrum. I did not have the privilege of catching Mr. Speaker's eye when the White Paper on broadcasting was debated, but I have heard few voices raised in this place on behalf of that massive audience.
I admire the "Today" programme on Radio 4, but of necessity it is dominated by politics and journalism. In the


wonderful days when Terry Wogan hosted the morning programme on Radio 2, I had a firm preference for coming to work without the background knowledge of the day's events but with a smile on my face and a song in my heart as a result of that first-class show. When he moved to the paradise of television, the excellent Ken Bruce was brought in to succeed him, but he has now been moved to a later spot, and I mostly miss his witty and pleasing programme.
I am well aware that criticising Derek Jameson will probably cost me my seat, but he epitomises all that is wrong in the management of Radio 2. Employed on the strength of his accent and his previous experience as a newspaper editor, his sheer banality jars this sensitive listener back to the "Today" programme with alacrity. There at least they take the trouble to pronounce place names correctly and do not indulge in instant judgments based on brief newspaper reports. Lord Reith must spin in his grave from 7.30 am to 9.30 am, except when the charming Vivienne Stewart succeeds in making the weather report sound interesting. Jimmy Young's potted politics, David Jacobs's smooth and professional lunch-time programme and Gloria Hunniford's chirpy interviews with interesting personalities speed us through the day.
Tempted as I am, there is not time to comment individually on every one of the items in the daily routine. However, I must just say that, although Brian Matthews is an excellent interviewer, his "Round Midnight" programme is inappropriate for the hour. When I complained, I was told that it was very popular with the literary and theatrical world, which is hardly surprising since they are the only people who are interviewed. Suitably relaxing music is what is required, and I hope that is what we shall shortly be getting.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister has no direct responsibility for this matter, but corresponding with the BBC has become increasingly fruitless. I once complained to the controller of BBC 2 about the nature of the religious programme on Sunday mornings. I received the riposte that clearly the only time that satisfied me was Saturday mornings. But they have ruined even that now. The only positive response came from Roger Royle, who, concerned at my suggestion that the list of interviewees for his programme showed political bias, discussed the matter with me. I was grateful to him for his trouble and for his satisfactory explanation.
The Minister may ask why, if I am so critical of Radio 2, I listen to that channel. That point goes to the very nub of my being in the Chamber tonight. The problem is that there is no alternative for those of us who like that type of programme. Although those who live in London have the chance of listening to Capital Gold, if our musical tastes happen to lie between Radios 1 and 3, there really is no alternative.
The hierarchy of the BBC, although admitting to the size of the audience and recognising the requirements to provide a musical-cum-news-cum-documentary programme, has now driven the final nail into the coffin of Radio 2 by condemning it to VHF only. The broadcasting research section of the House of Commons Library published a most perceptive analysis of aspects of this matter, including the reaction of those who would be

willing to listen to FM. It is significant that, of all those whose favourite station is Radio 2, half were reluctant to do so.
Although coverage of the country by VHF transmitters will be better by the end of the year, large numbers of people will be unable to receive light music programmes, and that matter should concern the Government. Although many car radios have the ability to receive FM transmissions, because they are largely receivable only on "line of sight" it is likely that, on any long-distance journeys, constant retuning is necessary. That is not only tedious but dangerous, although, in this context, I must say that there are gaps in existing transmissions, and I find it necessary to have both Radio 2 frequencies preset on my radio and to choose between them according to location.
I also make a plea for those who do not receive FM radio at all. This morning, one of my hon. Friends from a Yorkshire constituency mentioned a large group of people who, shrouded by the hills, still do not receive FM transmissions for any of the available programmes.
The relatively tiny audience for Radio 3 is extremely articulate and knows very well how to express its views to the BBC, which obliges with a ration of classical music, much of which is so modern as to be intolerable, but the BBC will never face the intellectual barrage that would shoot at it if it were to decline to provide the current fare. The Radio 2 audience does not seem to get the same consideration, in spite of its numbers. Perhaps I should add that, even now, Radio 2 carries a considerable amount of light classical music, which is much appreciated, and the concept that it is nothing but extracts from "The Sound of Music" or pop songs from the 1950s is totally untrue.
The amount of current pop music that is available on radio is quite out of proportion to the needs of the population. My constituency can receive no fewer than three independent radio stations, plus BBC Radio Bristol and Radio 1, all of which seem to offer a similar fare, although I must confess that I find the music so awful and so loud that I am no great expert at the better bits that I am sure those radio stations serve up. Why the BBC should continue to insist on the national broadcasting of that music on Radio 1 while at the same time maintaining its local stations when there is a substantial local commercial alternative remains beyond me and, I should think, most of those who pay for licences.
The new channel that is proposed to take the existing Radio 2 frequencies is to broadcast a mixture of education and sport. That sounds a fairly self-constraining recipe, particularly as schools have recently been encouraged to buy FM radios. What could be more suitable for sport than the use of VHF frequencies in different locations, enabling local interests to be catered for, as well as national occasions?
I repeat that 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week, many of whom are not only worried by the deterioration of standards and the general entertainment level of Radio 2 but find the latest technical change to move the station from medium wave the last straw.
I hope that, while washing his hands of responsibility, my hon. Friend the Minister will take my criticisms to heart and encourage the BBC, even at this eleventh hour, to review that decision. When the BBC learns the true depth of feeling about the decision, it will simply blame the Government's decision about wavelengths. We have enough burdens to carry at present.

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As well as focusing on the particular issues that he raised, the debate provides a useful opportunity to take stock of general developments in radio that are relevant to his theme.
The Broadcasting Bill, which is currently in Committee, where the radio provisions were debated last week, is particularly apposite. Even though the Bill is directly concerned largely with independent television and radio, the changes that it introduces form an important part of the background to what is happening in BBC radio. The Bill provides for a new Radio Authority, which will be empowered to offer licences for three new national independent radio services, and, if the demand is there, up to several hundred independent local radio stations. They will vary from the scale of the city and countywide stations that already exist, to community of interest stations, for example, catering to particular musical tastes, and smaller stations covering towns, possibly country areas and parts of cities, for example where the ethnic minorities live.
Our aim is to remove as many obstacles as we can to new services being offered to the listener. The Government set up the new Radio Authority in January in shadow form. We expect the new radio stations to come on air over the next few years. Each will be required to offer a distinctive service not already provided by existing independent radio services. In that way we hope not just to increase the number of services, but to ensure that real choice is provided for the listener.
The shadow Radio Authority placed advertisements in the national press—The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph—this morning, and similar advertisements are appearing elsewhere. The authority is inviting people to submit letters of intent declaring an interest in applying for a radio licence together with some background information and other details. That will give the authority a good idea of the nature, scale and location of demand to run services. It can then start drawing up plans for advertising specific licences around the country, for services that people want.
The new services will need to be introduced progressively over several years, bearing in mind both the administrative work involved and the spectrum available—a point that I shall return to. Some progress is already being made under existing legislation, through the Independent Broadcasting Authority's incremental radio scheme. Twenty-three contracts have been advertised for stations of a new and distinctive character. Some cater for ethnic minorities; some for more general communities of interest.
In London, for example, a jazz station started yesterday and Melody Radio, a light music station, is on the way. In the west country, a new station is planned for this year in Bristol, called FTP—"For The People". That is just the first of many that will come on air.
I refer more specifically to the BBC and the points that my hon. Friend made. The new services should provide it with more competition and widen choice for the listener. But the new services need the spectrum on which to broadcast; and the BBC has always had a dominant share

of the frequencies. That was only proper when it was providing most of the services; but new providers will be entering the field.
So, at the Government's request, the BBC has agreed to end the present practice of "simulcasting"—broadcasting the same service on more than one frequency at the same time. It has chosen to do that—and we have agreed—by concentrating Radios 1 to 4 on the FM bands. That is because of the generally higher quality of the signal, and its capacity for stereo and for RDS—radio data systems, which aid tuning and which should help my hon. Friend with his car radio problem and ensure that he does not have to keep tuning the knobs as he travels along.
As part of the change, from August this year Radio 2 will no longer be transmitted on both FM and AM—the medium wave. The BBC has asked to retain one national AM frequency—currently used for Radio 2—and use it to provide a new, fifth national network—Radio 5, which will focus on sport and education.
Radio 2 attracts a large proportion of older listeners, as well as my hon. Friend, and many of them currently listen to it on the medium wave. The BBC recognises that and has accordingly launched an FM listening campaign. That includes encouragement to people over the air to retune to FM, and supplementary leaflets and other activities. It is also rapidly building FM transmitters to bring FM services to those areas that have none at present. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend, who was rightly concerned about the present gaps in coverage.
As my hon. Friend said, some Radio 2 listeners do nol yet have radio sets capable of receiving FM. They are a minority—but I agree that they are an important one. Although sets capable of receiving FM can be purchased from around £10, I know that some will find even that difficult to manage. The BBC has sought to take a constructive approach to that. It is, for example, encouraging people to buy their elderly relatives FM radios as presents.
Although change brings inconvenience, the Independent Broadcasting Authority did some research last year, which showed that already over 90 per cent. of listeners had access to at least one FM radio. That figure will have grown over the past 12 months, following the recent introduction of Radio 1 on FM. That change, incidentally, has benefited Radio 2 listeners because they no longer have to share their FM frequency except for the "Top 40" on Sunday afternoons. From the beginning of April, the BBC expects Radio 2 to be on FM for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the quality of Radio 2 is a BBC rather than a Government responsibility. However, I am sure that the BBC will note and ponder carefully both my hon. Friend's praise and his criticism of its output. I am certain that it will take encouragement from the fact that he is a frequent interested and discriminating listener, if occasionally—as we all are—an exasperated one.
I conclude with two general points. The Government's policy is to introduce more competition into broadcasting, in the interest of the viewer and the listener. I believe that that will not only offer more services to listen to, but will provide a healthy stimulus for the BBC itself. But I should like also to pay tribute to the immense service that the BBC generally—and BBC radio in particular—has already


performed for this country—and, indeed, in times of trouble, for other countries, too. They and we have much to be proud of.
Finally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues, illustrating them colourfully from

his own listening, and for enabling me to set out the expanded and more varied radio service that our reforms will bring to him and to other listeners.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.